[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that tomorrow, Tuesday 11 November, is Armistice day. At 11 o’clock tomorrow, I regard it as appropriate that we, and staff working for us, should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to the heads of House Departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence may do so.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Localism

Laura Sandys: What steps his Department is taking to promote localism and give powers to local communities.

Eric Pickles: This Government have abolished Labour’s unelected regional assemblies and devolved power down to local people. We have given more power to councils over planning, housing, licensing and public health. Some 70% of all local authorities’ income is now raised locally.

Laura Sandys: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Worth, a village in my constituency, which has just had 92% acceptance of its neighbourhood plan? Does he agree that the additional money that has been secured for neighbourhood planning will help other towns in my constituency to deliver that empowerment to the people on the ground?

Eric Pickles: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the residents of Worth. She is absolutely right that the additional £23 million that has been announced will help and encourage many more communities across England to start neighbourhood planning and to take control of future developments in their area. Nearly 10% of the population of England is now covered by a neighbourhood plan.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that localism is not much help when the most important project in Coventry, the Gateway project, is called in and then the decision is
	delayed? An answer was expected in December, but it has been delayed to January and then to the end of January. Will he tell us when he will make a decision?

Eric Pickles: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not call in many applications for consideration. Last year, we called in only about eight. The one he has mentioned has some degree of complexity, and he will understand that I cannot comment about the individual application until all the facts are before me.

Mark Prisk: I strongly support the Minister’s excellent work in devolving powers to our city regions. Will he assure us that our counties and rural areas such as those in east Hertfordshire will have the same opportunity for these new responsibilities?

Eric Pickles: Such areas most certainly do have the same opportunity. The devolution of responsibilities and powers to cities has been an important step forward for localism. I should like to see counties, perhaps adjoining counties, and district councils coming together with a united case, because it was that unity of purpose, which was presented to us in various deliberations, that made it easier for us to take powers out of central Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be at the forefront in encouraging his local councils to do exactly that.

Keith Vaz: Last Thursday, I held an Adjournment debate on works that had been carried out by Sainsbury’s in Belgrave and Leicester, which was efficiently answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). When will local communities be given the powers to hold developers to account not just for planning applications but when works are being executed, because great delays are being caused by this company?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is very junior and new to the job, has just briefed me on the situation. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, the local authority should exercise the powers that it already has in these matters. There is not much point in calling for new powers if the existing ones are not used.

David Nuttall: While I agree that the devolution of powers to local authorities can be a good thing, does my right hon. Friend agree that local people should always be consulted before there are any changes to their system of local government?

Eric Pickles: Certainly. When new things are to be brought in, I think that it is appropriate to have a consultation and, in some cases, a referendum. The most important thing about localism is that it is about passing powers not only to councils, but to local communities.

Kerry McCarthy: In my constituency we are currently campaigning against a planning application for a new drive-through McDonald’s. I hope that it will be rejected on the normal planning grounds of noise, pollution and so on, but does the Minister think that the local community should also be able to reject such applications when they are very close to local schools?

Eric Pickles: Of course, it is very important in that kind of discussion to have a local plan in place, and one would expect a local council to be helpful to the community, and to developers, by setting out clearly where particular developments should take place. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; obviously we will consider that fairly and openly if it comes to us, because the applicant is entitled to justice.

Firefighters’ Pensions

Pat Glass: What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

Alex Cunningham: What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

David Hanson: When he next plans to meet firefighters to discuss their pensions.

Ronnie Campbell: What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

Penny Mordaunt: After extensive consultation and numerous changes, the Government laid the final regulations before Parliament on 28 October. They provide one of the best schemes in the public sector. I regularly meet firefighters and will continue to do so.

Pat Glass: We have just come through the longest firefighters’ strike in 38 years. When will the Government stop their politically motivated and disingenuous behaviour in this dispute and genuinely sit down with the Fire Brigades Union to settle this, as the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are doing?

Penny Mordaunt: There has been extensive debate and consultation on these matters. I have dealt with any outstanding issues in the past few months, including those of the transition of armed forces pension schemes into the firefighters’ pension scheme and fitness protections. The regulations have now been laid, and it is evident from the questions coming from the Opposition that they do not understand the scheme. It is an excellent scheme, and to say otherwise would be to do firefighters a disservice.

Alex Cunningham: In a letter to the shadow fire Minister on 5 September, the Minister stated:
	“I am conscious that we will only have the ideas for the service to meet future challenges and aspirations if firefighters are engaged and feel an ownership for the service. Trust and good morale are key to this.”
	How does refusing to change a single word of the regulation improve morale, and how does refusing to negotiate improve trust?

Penny Mordaunt: The irony of the hon. Gentleman’s question might be lost on him, but I am sure that it will not be lost on many Members of the House. There have been several changes to the scheme since it was originally
	published, including improvements on the 2006 scheme—introduced by Labour—which introduced retirement age at 60, disproportionately penalised firefighters who want to retire early and offered no protections on fitness. We have addressed those issues in the new scheme.

David Hanson: Will the Minister explain to me why my constituents who work for Welsh local authority fire services have reached agreement on a fitness test and a pension plan, through a negotiated settlement and at no extra cost to the taxpayer, yet my constituents who work for the Merseyside or Cheshire fire services, on the English side of the border, are faced with a strike because of an intransigent Minister?

Penny Mordaunt: What the right hon. Gentleman says is not correct; Wales and Northern Ireland have made no announcements on fitness. We are currently consulting on doing what Scotland has done through a regulation, which would offer firefighters those protections —we have to do that through a statutory instrument because we do not have one single fire authority for England. In addition, we are the only nation that has set up a working group on fitness to ensure good practice among all our fire authorities.

Ronnie Campbell: I worked down the coal mine for 29 years, and I watched old men of 60 struggling at the coal face. What must it be like for firemen of 60 trying to save lives from fire and flood?

Penny Mordaunt: As I said earlier, it was Labour that introduced the retirement age at 60, but this is an issue that I—[Interruption.] I have to say that I take great offence, particularly at some of the paid-for advertising that has been run in local newspapers, which has been incredibly patronising towards older workers. We need older workers to stay in the fire service because they have great expertise. By offering protections on pensions and jobs for older workers and good practice for fire authorities to follow, we will ensure that in future they have the protections that Labour did not introduce.

Catherine McKinnell: In her open letter of 24 October, the Minister thanks firefighters
	“for your patience in letting me work through these issues”.
	The regulations she has put forward were in place in June 2013, so what exactly have they been patient for, and why does not she treat them with the respect that they deserve?

Penny Mordaunt: As an incoming Minister, I could have immediately laid the regulations, but I chose not to do so because I felt there were some outstanding issues, one major recurring theme being the many firefighters who have previously been in the armed forces thinking that they have been disproportionately adversely affected by transferring in their pensions. That is one issue I looked at, among others. Most importantly, I also met a number of groups, including women’s groups, within the fire service. I have trained as a firefighter and I am a serving reservist, so I know the stresses that women go through in order to maintain strength, in particular, in their fitness tests. That formed the bulk of our negotiations
	with the FBU. I am very happy that on the day we laid the regulations we also started a six-week consultation on putting protections for firefighters on a statutory footing.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that no firefighter over the age of 55 faces the prospect of having no job and that they still have a good pension?

Penny Mordaunt: As I said in previous answers, we are consulting on putting those protections on a statutory footing in the national framework. That will, through a single regulation, have the same effect as what Scotland has done.

Richard Fuller: Given that the Minister has recognised that there remain severe reservations about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the fire service to accommodate them?

Penny Mordaunt: Yes. In addition to the protections that we are consulting on, we are the only nation that has set up a working group to ensure that there is best practice for fire authorities to follow so that their firefighters can maintain fitness.

Lyn Brown: In negotiations with the FBU, the hon. Lady said that some firefighters might not be able to maintain operational fitness standards until the age of 60. She promised regulations to protect those firefighters, she promised to address the specific concerns of women firefighters, and she asked the FBU for detailed proposals. Now she has torn up every promise, stopped negotiations, imposed her own regulations, and plunged the fire service into the longest and most avoidable strike in 36 years. Firefighters risk their lives on a daily basis. Do they not deserve better?

Penny Mordaunt: I have outlined in several previous answers the reason that we cannot use the regulation: we have more than one fire authority in England—we have 46. We must go through the national framework, but it will be on a statutory footing. I caution the hon. Lady on this: we want older firefighters and women to stay in the fire service, and she is not helping by spreading myths about the existing scheme.

Neighbourhood Planning (Community Rights)

Mark Menzies: What assessment he has made of the level of the take-up of neighbourhood planning and community rights.

Brandon Lewis: Over 1,500 assets of community value have now been identified and listed, and over 1,200 communities have taken their first steps towards producing a neighbourhood plan for their area. There has been overwhelming support in the 34 local referendums held so far, and that means that roughly 5.2 million people are now covered by a neighbourhood planning area.

Mark Menzies: May I take this opportunity to praise the residents of Warton in my constituency who recently submitted a comprehensive neighbourhood
	plan in line with the Government’s aspiration for community engagement? Does my hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood plans should be given full consideration by local councils at the earliest opportunity?

Brandon Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend’s community on going forward with a neighbourhood plan. He is absolutely right. Local authorities should move forward to get them to the referendum stage as quickly as possible—the average at the moment is just two months. I hope that his community will benefit from that as well.

Jim Cunningham: The Government have made very much of localism, particularly community planning. Why, then, has the Minister held up the Gateway project in Coventry? Why cannot we have a decision?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that every planning decision that comes through the Department is taken on its own merits. Obviously I cannot comment on a particular application as it is going through its process.

Bob Russell: Neighbourhood planning and community rights are clearly welcome, so will the Minister give advice to a community that cannot exercise them because the people who are planning to build 3,000 houses on their doorstep are in the neighbouring local authority area?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue for local authorities, and Labour’s plans, which would allow councils to build on other councils’ land, would create that very problem. That is why we have the duty to co-operate and planning inspectors look very carefully at how it is exercised. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Recent research by planning consultancy Turley shows that areas of below average income have so far been less involved in the neighbourhood planning process, with just nine plans published in areas categorised as most deprived. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that more disadvantaged communities can participate in this process and that it does not become the preserve of the affluent few?

Brandon Lewis: All communities should be looking to undertake neighbourhood planning. I visited Southwark last week to see the excellent work being done there. A wide range of more than 1,250 areas are undertaking neighbourhood planning. Obviously, a few are ahead of the others and there have been 34 referendums. We have put in more money and are funding local areas that undertake neighbourhood planning and the local authorities to support them. I encourage all areas and communities to consider undertaking a neighbourhood plan.

Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation

Fiona Mactaggart: What estimate he has made of the number of children living in bed- and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

Kris Hopkins: We have invested more than £500 million to prevent and tackle homelessness. Homelessness statistics reported by local councils are published by the Department and they show that 3,670 children were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 30 June.

Fiona Mactaggart: Slough council made strenuous efforts to avoid the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for children, and before 2010 it had abolished it. However, I estimate that in the past two years some 60 children have been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in this area of high housing need. Will the Minister meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children, to discuss how we can avoid using bed-and-breakfast accommodation for children? They do not learn how to eat at a table and are often pushed out of their homes during the day and end up in expensive cafés. What is the Minister going to do to end this situation?

Kris Hopkins: First of all, we already do meet as a ministerial group. The number of homeless acceptances has dropped by 2% this year. There are eight people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Slough and nobody has been in those bed and breakfasts for more than six weeks.

Emma Reynolds: Earlier this year the Minister told the House that the number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had dropped compared with the previous year and that that was
	“a direct consequence of this Government’s intervention”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 588.]
	Since then, however, the Government have released figures that show that the number has, in fact, increased to a 10-year high. Given that the Minister took credit for the fall in the numbers, will he now take responsibility for the increase? Crucially, what is he going to do to help those families with children?

Kris Hopkins: The number of families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has dropped by a third since Labour was in power, the peak being in 2002. We have put in a significant amount of money where there are issues in councils, and we have reduced bed-and-breakfast acceptances by some 96% where we have intervened.

Community Pubs

Henry Smith: What steps his Department is taking to support community pubs.

Kris Hopkins: In last year’s autumn statement we announced a £1 billion package of business rate support, which included a £1,000 discount for small businesses with rateable values above £50,000. That is benefiting three out of four pubs.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the work the Government have done on reducing the burden of business rates. Will he consider further reform, such as standardised billings and an appeals process, to reduce yet more of the burden on small businesses and community pubs such as the Charcoal Burner in Furnace Green?

Kris Hopkins: I commend my hon. Friend on his work in supporting the pub industry. As well as the £1 billion package to help bills, we are considering ways in which the regime could be improved through a review of our business rates administration. We are also looking at ways to speed up the appeals process, to make it more transparent for businesses.

Clive Efford: The problem with pubs in inner-city areas such as London is that the land they sit on is so valuable that they fall prey to property developers who want to build houses, as has happened to the Dutch House public house in my constituency. Is it not about time that we told developers that they are not going to take away these assets, which are highly valued by local communities, just for their profits? Will the Minister take some action to ensure that we protect pubs in such a situation?

Kris Hopkins: We have already put in place a community right to bid process. As well as discounts for the associated business rates, councils can use article 4 directions if they want to shape their particular community and to shape how such businesses are established. The hon. Gentleman is right that the pub plays a really important role in the community. The good news is that beer is 8p cheaper as a consequence of this Government.

Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the serial bad behaviour by the Co-op in my constituency and others in the south, where it is taking over pubs and converting them into shops, often on very unsatisfactory sites? The Ship Inn in Cuckfield in my constituency is uniquely badly placed to serve as a Co-op. Will he look at what he can do to review the article 4 direction scheme, and to give general instructions about where such shops should be sited?

Mr Speaker: That was a splendidly detailed question. There was I thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us about the champagne and oysters that he consumes in his community pub, but I was wrong.

Kris Hopkins: I commend my right hon. Friend for his support of the local pub. The article 4 direction scheme is strong, and it gives councils the opportunity to intervene. I know that there is a passionate campaign to support to Ship Inn. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the campaigners, and I will try to support them where I can.

Kevin Barron: Other things threatening public houses include not just the issue of business rates, but the cost of alcohol compared with the discounts that people get in their local shops and supermarkets. Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues about changing the price of alcohol in this country, as has been recommended, to protect not just people’s health but the local village pub?

Kris Hopkins: All sellers of alcohol have a responsibility to make sure that they promote responsible alcohol consumption, which the Government are encouraging. There is a consultation on alcohol pricing, which is still under consideration.

Greg Mulholland: No one wants this Government to be shown to be the most pro-pub Government ever more than me, but that is not going to happen while this ministerial team continue to not change the rules whereby a pub can become a supermarket without needing to go through the planning process. Will the new Minister with responsibility for community pubs tell us that he will finally stop this scandal, which is robbing communities of pubs up and down the country?

Kris Hopkins: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because nobody in the House is more enthusiastic about supporting pubs than me. There are powers through an article 4 direction to protect a location, and there is an opportunity through the community right to bid to support a treasured local site. I suggest that he works with the local council to make sure that he secures such assets.

Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to many small community pubs by independent family brewers? Will he speak to his counterparts in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the concession achieved for them during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill is carried through and that they are excluded from the regulations?

Kris Hopkins: Having several small brewers in my constituency, I know that they make a huge contribution to the local economy. I am more than willing to have the conversation for which my right hon. Friend has asked.

Business Rates (Small Businesses)

Tony Baldry: How many small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Cherwell district council area have been affected by the reduction in business rates.

Charlie Elphicke: How many small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Dover have been affected by the reduction in business rates.

Kris Hopkins: Our £1 billion business rates support package includes a £1,000 discount for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants. That will benefit more than 300,000 premises in England, including 430 in Cherwell and 580 in Dover. We are also doubling small business rate relief for a further year, which will benefit about 575,000 businesses, with 385,000 businesses paying no rates at all. That will help 1,100 small businesses in Cherwell, and 1,300 small businesses in Dover.

Tony Baldry: Has not the introduction of the business rate retention scheme given local authorities the ability to offer business rate discounts to help attract
	firms, investment and jobs? Is not the fact that local authorities now directly and locally retain half the business rates a strong incentive for councils to encourage businesses and enterprises to set up in their areas?

Kris Hopkins: Councils have a huge responsibility to promote local businesses, whether that involves getting the skill set right or using the discretionary powers that we have given them. I know that businesses and councils, particularly Conservative councils across the country, are responding positively.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome all the Government have done to help high streets such as that of Deal, in my constituency? Will Ministers condemn the Local Government Association group leader who has been going up and down the land telling councils to hike taxes and business rates, which will devastate our high streets and increase the cost of food?

Kris Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to promote Deal high street, which has been a tremendous success. Most recently, Deal topped the polls as Britain’s best coastal town as voted for by readers of The Daily Telegraph. The instinct of the Labour party is to tax businesses, ours is to encourage and grow local businesses by offering tax breaks.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Minister explain who sets the business rates?

Kris Hopkins: Local authorities have been given the opportunity to shape their tax base.

Affordable Housing

Caroline Lucas: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of affordable housing in Brighton and Hove.

Brandon Lewis: Local authorities are required to develop an evidence base locally. This ensures that their local plans meet the needs for their market and for affordable housing to be consistent with policies in the national planning policy framework. We have published new guidance to local authorities on assessing housing need in their area and 340 new affordable homes have been provided in Brighton and Hove since 2010.

Caroline Lucas: In spite of national constraints, the Green administration in Brighton has overseen the development of more than 500 affordable homes, with a further 230 in the pipeline, and has built the first council homes in a generation. Brighton council and councils around the country could do much more if the Government would provide direct capital grant funding. Will the Minister reconsider that and meet my constituents to discuss proposals we have put together in a local housing charter to promote fairer rents and more affordable homes?

Brandon Lewis: There is about £2.8 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account across local authorities. We have recognised this year that some authorities that have been building have come close to that headroom,
	so we made extra money available. We have already announced some bids and will announce some more shortly. I encourage local authorities to bid to take up this opportunity, along with the housing guarantee grants that we have been offering with housing associations to provide more affordable housing. I am proud that we have managed to deliver more than 200,000 such houses over the past couple of years.

Local Government Pension Scheme

Bob Neill: When his Department plans to issue a final response to the consultation entitled “Opportunities for collaboration, cost savings and efficiencies”; launched in May 2014, on the local government pension scheme.

Kris Hopkins: Our consultation outlined how £660 million a year could be saved if local government pension funds were invested more efficiently. We will publish a response in due course. Many funds have already started to take the messages from the consultation on board.

Bob Neill: I hope that “due course” will not be too long delayed, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the significant savings that have been made to taxpayers and scheme members by the agglomeration of vehicles. When he takes on board the consequences of the consultation, will he particularly bear in mind the value that can be brought by collective investment vehicles, which can achieve some 90% of those savings without significant administrative upheaval and can provide useful vehicles for wider investment?

Kris Hopkins: The consultation considered how some £240 million could be saved by creating combined investment vehicles. It should be noted that London borough councils have already taken that on board and some 30 councils have come together after their council meetings and have agreed to bring those funds together.

Council Tax Freeze

Maria Miller: What assessment he has made of the effect on council tax payers of freezing the rates of council tax.

Eric Pickles: Under Labour, council tax more than doubled. Under this Government, it has fallen by 11% in real terms. Our council tax freeze is saving the average band D householder in England up to £1,073 over the lifetime of this Parliament.

Maria Miller: Just like central Government, local government has had to take tough spending decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree that councils such as mine in Basingstoke, which have frozen council tax for five years, have protected front-line services such as the weekly bin collection and are now rated by their residents as providing even better value for money, have got those tough decisions right?

Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to be associated with my right hon. Friend. I congratulate Basingstoke and Deane borough council on its excellent work. We must remember
	that we are doing all this to ensure that ordinary people on modest incomes are not forced to pay hundreds of pounds more for a mansion tax. That is why the Government will not introduce one. We want to reduce the cost of living, not increase it. That is why we are helping councils to freeze council tax.

Philip Hollobone: Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate Kettering borough council, of which I also have the privilege to be a member, on freezing its share of the council tax since 2010, maintaining all its front-line services, maintaining its grants to local community groups and cutting car parking charges?

Eric Pickles: Every time I travel close to Kettering, I find myself saying, “Thank God for Kettering borough council.” What a great, well-run council it is. It is my pleasure to say from this Dispatch Box—I think for the 10th time—that Kettering borough council is magnificent, as is its Member of Parliament.

Julie Hilling: But what is the additional cost to people on low incomes who now have to pay for basic services that they need and who have lost their council tax benefit?

Eric Pickles: I assume that the hon. Lady is making some kind of spending commitment on behalf of the Labour party—an unlimited one. Local schemes are put in place by local councils. We have offered them transitional relief to help them. It is a ludicrous argument to say that poor people and people who are struggling hard do not pay council tax. The problem with the hon. Lady is that she belongs to the political classes, who are out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.

Social Housing

Andrew Stunell: What steps he is taking to increase the supply of social housing.

Stephen Williams: We are on course to deliver the Government’s programme of 170,000 affordable homes by March 2015. A further £23 billion of investment will deliver 165,000 affordable homes between 2015 and 2018. That will be the fastest rate of affordable house building for at least 20 years.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for that positive report. Will he assure the House that the energy performance of new social and affordable homes will not be downgraded using any of the foolish loopholes in the Infrastructure Bill, and that we will get genuinely zero-carbon homes in the social and affordable sector?

Stephen Williams: The Government are determined that we will. We tightened up the energy efficiency standards for new house building in April and we have announced a commitment to zero-carbon homes from 2016. It is important, however, to get smaller house builders back into the market, which is why we are consulting on a modest exemption.

Clive Betts: There is a chronic shortage of social housing in this country, not least in my constituency. Despite that and despite the cuts in the grants for building affordable homes, will the Minister confirm that £800 million of grants have not been bid for and are sitting, unused, in the coffers of the Homes and Communities Agency? Does he blame the providers for not putting in bids because they do not see the need for social housing, or does he blame Government policy, under which the amount of grant per unit has been cut to such a low level that providers no longer feel able to bid for the money?

Stephen Williams: In fact, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London authority, which is responsible for this matter in London, have announced initial allocations of £1.3 billion under the next programme to deliver 62,000 new affordable homes from 2015 to 2018. We will open the bidding process for the next round soon.

Sarah Wollaston: Is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed by our national park authorities about the possible unintended consequences of introducing a threshold below which affordable housing would not be required under section 106 agreements? Is he aware that it could halve the ability of the authority for the national park that I represent, Dartmoor, to deliver affordable housing, including social housing?

Stephen Williams: Yes, I and my ministerial colleagues certainly are aware of the special concerns about providing affordable homes in national parks. That is why, in the consultation, we have proposed a different threshold for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty from that for urban areas.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw the House’s attention to my interests?
	As the Minister will know from his own Department’s figures, just 100,000 new housing association and council homes have been built in the first four years of the life of this Government. Given that their record is an average of just 25,000 affordable homes being built over their four years to date, how will he miraculously deliver a further 75,000 in the Government’s last remaining year in office? It beggars belief that output will treble, as he suggests.

Stephen Williams: Some people may think that it beggars belief that a former Housing Minister can say that, given that in the 13 years for which his party was in office, with a rather different economic inheritance, the number of social and affordable homes fell by 420,000. This will be probably the first Government in my lifetime to leave more affordable homes in stock at the end of a five-year Parliament than there were before it.

Council Tax Benefit

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Kris Hopkins: Local council tax support schemes are a matter for local authorities. An independent review of schemes will be carried out within three years, as set out in legislation.

Stephen Hepburn: The changes to council tax benefit that the Government have brought in are every bit as cruel as the evil bedroom tax and Thatcher’s poll tax. My local citizens advice bureau tells me that its new referrals to food banks have gone up from two a month to 10 a week. When will the Government stop attacking the poor?

Kris Hopkins: One way in which we can get people to stop using food banks is to get them into a job, and this Government have delivered 1.8 million jobs for those individuals.

Andy Sawford: The New Policy Institute says that more than 200,000 families have been hit by both increases in council tax, due to the withdrawal of council tax support, and the bedroom tax. Will the Minister make a proper assessment of that tax double whammy on the least able to pay, and will he tell us why he is so keen to increase taxes on the poorest people?

Kris Hopkins: This Government have frozen council tax for some five years, and in real terms it is 11% less than it was, which equates to a saving of more than £1,000 for an individual household. That is the Government’s track record.

Departmental and Local Authority Budgets

Chi Onwurah: What level of reduction there has been in (a) his Department’s budget and (b) centrally-funded local authority budgets since May 2010.

Kris Hopkins: We needed to make sensible savings to address Labour’s deficit. Local authority net current expenditure in England, excluding education, has risen from £74.7 billion in 2009-10 to £77.1 billion in 2013-14. At the time of the spending review, the budget for the core Department was reduced to £15.9 billion, reflecting an overall saving of 68%.

Chi Onwurah: Since this Government took office, Newcastle has had its budget cut by 41% in real terms—almost half. My constituents are losing £115 per dwelling, while more affluent areas such as Surrey and Wokingham are gaining up to £20 extra per dwelling despite having less pressure on services. Will the Minister make a commitment to come to Newcastle to see the effects that his budget cuts are having on local services, and to explain to the people of Newcastle how they are fair?

Kris Hopkins: I have had the pleasure of visiting the great city of Newcastle many times this year. It has the opportunity to invest money, support vulnerable individuals and spend further on public services by growing its business base. As a direct consequence of this Government’s interventions, 6,300 businesses have gained from our business tax discount.

Protection for Leaseholders

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps he is taking to protect leaseholders from nuisance legal actions initiated by their landlords.

Brandon Lewis: Existing legislation already provides leaseholders with rights and protections. Furthermore, the Government fund the Leasehold Advisory Service to give free advice to leaseholders who face a dispute with their landlord.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response, but not enough is being done. My constituent Emma Stewart is being pursued by her landlord over a leasehold dispute. A tribunal decision found that Ms Stewart had made every effort to comply with the terms of her lease, and that her landlord had not been disadvantaged in any way, yet they continue to demand payment from her. That is a clear case of nuisance action and has cost Ms Stewart the sale of her home. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation and say what on earth can be done?

Brandon Lewis: I wrote to the hon. Lady about this issue a couple of weeks ago, but I am happy to meet her if that letter did not cover everything she needs.

Stormwater Drainage (Local Authorities)

Duncan Hames: What recent guidance he has given local authorities on ensuring adequate storm water drainage in residential areas. [Official Report, 18 November 2014, Vol. 588, c. 1-2MC.]

Stephen Williams: There are strict tests in national planning policy to protect people and property from flooding, including from storm water. We made clear in planning guidance that we published in March that where those tests are not met, new development should not be allowed.

Duncan Hames: Quite right. In the past year we have seen businesses and homes damaged by floods in Bradford on Avon, Corsham, Melksham, and villages, including Holt. What role does the Minister expect local authorities such as Wiltshire council to play in preventing flood damage with sufficient storm water drainage?

Stephen Williams: We obviously expect local authorities to deal with such issues through their local plan. Some 94 local authorities act as the lead local flood authority and are expected to have in place a flood risk management strategy. Of those 94, 36 local authorities have not yet published or consulted on their strategy and, according to my information, Wiltshire is one of them. Perhaps as a diligent constituency MP, my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging Wiltshire council to come forward with that plan.

Help to Buy Scheme

Steve Brine: What the take-up of Help to Buy has been in (a) England and (b) Winchester constituency.

Brandon Lewis: The Government have already helped more than 54,000 families purchase a home in England with the support of Help to Buy since March 2012, helping people to achieve their ambition of owning their own home. In the Winchester local authority area, 65 families have already bought through Help to Buy.

Steve Brine: Like many Members, I have spent years listening to young people say that they can afford mortgage payments but never the deposit to get on the housing ladder. Help to Buy nails that issue, and it is one of the most positive things this Government have done. Will the Minister comment on the starter homes plan and say whether those two programmes will work together to give more young people a chance to live the dream?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has campaigned hard for people to aspire to own their own home, and the Government share that desire. The Conservatives have made clear that after the next election we want to deliver 100,000 extra starter homes at a 20% discount, giving more people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder for the first time.

Topical Questions

Bill Esterson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: There is no place in British society for anti-Semitism, and we must stand united to resist all the pernicious ways in which it is manifested. Recently, there has been an increase in anti-Semitic graffiti on public property, private homes and in Jewish cemeteries, where gravestones have been desecrated and covered in offensive graffiti. That is appalling. Today, I am writing to councils, with the Community Security Trust, to stress the importance of using their range of legal powers to remove such graffiti quickly, including on private property, and to report all incidents to the police. That is part of a wider measure to tackle anti-Semitism and promote tolerance and respect in our society.

Bill Esterson: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about tackling anti-Semitism.
	Merseyside Fire and Rescue service has faced a 35% cut to its Government grant since the Government came to power, which means that it has lost two of the four whole-time fire appliances serving my constituency. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that we will not suffer further cuts in the next spending review, given that such cuts would inevitably lead to the loss of at least one of the fire stations in Sefton?

Eric Pickles: The project merges existing stations into three new efficient stations, while protecting front-line services with the introduction of an on-call arrangement on the three new sites. In addition, the new sites will be shared with police and ambulance services, enabling further efficiencies and service contribution. That seems a very sensible way of going forward.

David Mowat: Last month, the Secretary of State upheld the planning inspector’s decision to close the Arpley landfill in Warrington. This is of great benefit to the town and on behalf of the residents I thank him for that. Will he confirm that landfill remains at the bottom of the waste hierarchy and that in time it will be replaced everywhere by incineration and recycling?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, below incineration, energy recovery and recycling. Updated planning policy on waste from October this year continues the focus of moving waste up the hierarchy by moving away from traditional landfill towards more sustainable options.

Hilary Benn: I join the Secretary of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much welcome the action he has taken today.
	Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend permitted development rights so that offices could be converted to residential use without requiring planning permission. What assessment has he made of the impact of his change on the availability of office space, in particular for small and start-up businesses that are so important to our economy?

Eric Pickles: First, may I express great sadness that the right hon. Gentleman was not on his feet yesterday to defend his leader? For him to be missing seems to me to be deeply shameful. [Interruption.] Well I’m here to defend Ed.
	We did this because there was quite a lot of surplus office accommodation. It was a necessary thing to do and I think it has improved a number of town centres by getting people new homes. In terms of offering new and exciting ways for people to set up new businesses, the situation remains open.

Hilary Benn: It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that
	“in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms to operate.”
	A recent Local Government Association survey found in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a localist. He said earlier that he has given more power to local communities to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that his view on this matter would prevail over the views of local people?

Eric Pickles: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to defend the Leader of the Opposition, which again I am very shocked at. He should do his homework: local schemes exist and article 4 exists. It is possible to decide where they go and where they do not. People need housing, and where Labour failed to deliver houses, we have succeeded.

Stephen McPartland: Stevenage borough council has taken more than £3.5 million in car parking charges, preventing the regeneration of Stevenage town centre. Thousands of local people have joined my campaign for three hours free parking. Will the Minister agree to support my campaign and send a strong message to Stevenage borough council to stop ripping off local people?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. He is quite right that this is an issue that restricts growth locally. We recognise that and have introduced restricting the use of CCTV to enforce parking, grace periods for on-street parking, and have made it possible for local people to require their local councils to review parking. I draw his attention to the Great British High Street portal, which demonstrates that if local authorities reduce their parking rates they receive greater revenue.

Liz McInnes: Responding to a Centrepoint report quoted in The Independent last week, the homelessness Minister said that the number of people sleeping rough was falling dramatically and claimed that it was a result of the Government’s action. Given that his Department’s own figures show that the level of rough sleeping has risen every year under this Government and is up 37% since 2010, will he repeat his claim to the House and take responsibility for this dramatic change in levels of rough sleeping?

Kris Hopkins: The Government take the plight of individuals who are homeless and rough sleeping extremely seriously, which is why we support the No Second Night Out project and have invested £1 billion through homeless services and welfare reform to address the problem. Levels of homelessness have dropped by 2%. Rough sleeping figures across the country are variable, but the Government take the issue extremely seriously and will continue to support those vulnerable individuals.

Oliver Heald: Has the Minister seen the disturbing reports from Tower Hamlets that £400,000 was given to organisations that did not meet minimum standards and that council land was sold off to friends of the administration? The mayor, Mr Rahman, says they have done nothing wrong, but surely this has to be tackled—a very serious situation has arisen.

Eric Pickles: As my hon. and learned Friend will recall, I made a statement to the House last week, and we are currently waiting to hear what the mayor has to say in response to the report. As the House will recall, I asked for two specific undertakings regarding the disposal of property. We have received those undertakings, and I hope to make an announcement very soon.

Alison Seabeck: I draw the House’s attention to my indirect interest, which I frequently make public in this place. When will the Secretary of State act to save roughly £500 million of public money over 10 years by giving registered housing providers the same powers as local
	authorities to enter properties to carry out essential gas safety checks, as supported by the Association of Gas Safety Managers?

Brandon Lewis: I am discussing this matter with the industry, and I will continue to do so and inform the House once we have finished those conversations.

Mark Pritchard: The concrete councillors of Labour-led Telford and Wrekin borough council seem to be building on every bit of greenfield and every green patch in the borough, despite its being a semi-rural borough. What more can the planning Minister do to encourage this out-of-touch council to build on brownfield sites?

Brandon Lewis: We have published further guidance to help councils to appreciate that green-belt development should be an absolute last resort and that brownfield sites should always be used first. This summer, we made available to councils an extra several hundred million pounds, and I encourage my hon. Friend’s council to bid for some of that and do what it can to protect its valuable green belt.

John Healey: It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has personally allowed the dispute over fire service pensions to drag on for three years. The Government’s own expert report says that two thirds of firefighters will not pass the current fitness standard at the age of 60, meaning they will be faced with no job and no pension after years of good service. Why has he turned his back on firefigters and now dragged his new junior Minister away from the negotiating table?

Penny Mordaunt: As I have stated before, we have introduced protections for firefighters on a statutory footing and set up a working group to ensure best practice to enable people to maintain their fitness. We have gone further still, however, and are looking at the future shape of the work force to ensure that people who want to stay operational but cannot maintain those fitness standards have jobs to go to.

Andrew Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider strengthening guidelines to prevent a council from unilaterally removing heritage assets, including a presumption of like-for-like replacement if assets need renewal? In particular, I am thinking about popular items of street furniture.

Eric Pickles: Obviously, if my hon. Friend has something specific in mind, I would be most interested to hear what he has to say, and perhaps we could have a discussion about it today.

Luciana Berger: This Government have taken away 58% of Liverpool city council’s funding, hitting Liverpool harder than anywhere else, yet Liverpool is still finding innovative new ways of maintaining services, including the announcement today that all our libraries will be kept open. Will the Secretary of State finally travel to visit Liverpool for himself to see what difference the city could make if its funding cuts were at the national average?

Eric Pickles: Liverpool is one of the highest-funded councils in the country, but it has one problem—it does not collect its council tax. If it were to do so, an enormous burden would be taken off the shoulders of taxpayers in Liverpool.

David Heath: Given the Prime Minister’s commitments earlier in the year, why is it proving so difficult for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to find a sustainable funding formula for the proposed Somerset river authority? Frankly, I do not care about precedent—13,000 acres under water is a pretty compelling precedent in itself.

Eric Pickles: We have, of course, honoured our obligations to the people of Somerset with £20 million having already gone in and an additional £13.1 million for looking at the possibility of a barrier at Bridgwater. It simply comes down to this: what we are doing is trying to find something sustainable. The hon. Gentleman seems to be urging me to tax people who were flooded. What we are looking at is trying to get something sustainable without over-burdening the people of Somerset. That seems a much more sensible course to pursue.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Further to the Secretary of State’s statement last week on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Tower Hamlets and the criticism on grants and disposal of assets in particular, it was reported at column 669 that the right hon. Gentleman would “send a copy” of the report “to the police”. Will he confirm that a copy will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, too?

Eric Pickles: It appears on our website, but I will certainly bring the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service to it. I express no view on whether or not these matters are criminal. I am certainly unhappy with them, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution to make the appropriate decision. I am determined to ensure that Tower Hamlets has the best possible council so that public confidence can be re-established in it.

Andrew Robathan: I understand that the Secretary of State is calling in almost all onshore wind farm applications and turning most of them down, including those already approved by the planning authorities. Given the majority of the people of this country say, when polled, that they are broadly in favour of onshore wind projects, will the right hon. Gentleman explain his Department’s policy on this matter?

Kris Hopkins: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to correct him. There have been just over 800 applications for solar and wind farms, of which some 40 have been recovered and only four have ever been called in.

Sammy Wilson: The continuing firefighters’ dispute in England is both damaging and avoidable. Will the Minister look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Executive have come to an agreement with the firefighters that is
	neither costly nor damaging? Will he adopt the same common-sense approach here as has been adopted in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

Penny Mordaunt: In summary, all the schemes except that of Northern Ireland have a retirement age of 60, while England and Scotland have the same faster accrual
	rate and England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the same transitional protections. Wales and Northern Ireland have not yet made any announcements on fitness. The scheme in England is marginally different from that of the other nations and, in many respects, it is better. The regulations have been laid. We must get the message across to firefighters to remain part of that scheme.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Edward Balls: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement to clarify his agreement on the European Union budget surcharge.

George Osborne: Last month the previous European Commission presented Britain with a bill for £1.7 billion, which it insisted must be paid by 1 December. The Prime Minister spoke for British taxpayers when he said that that was completely unacceptable, and we set about getting a better deal. Following intensive discussions with the new Commission and at the ECOFIN meeting last week, we have achieved such a deal. I can tell the House that we have halved the Bill, have delayed the Bill, will pay no interest on the Bill, and have changed the rules of the European Union so that such unacceptable behaviour never happens again.
	Let me briefly give the House the details. At the European Council last month, the Prime Minister made it clear to the Barroso Commission that while annual adjustments to contributions were a regular part of EU membership, a sudden and unprecedented demand for a £1.7 billion payment on 1 December was unacceptable. He secured the agreement of all 28 Heads of Government that it should be discussed by the Finance Ministers as a matter of urgency. That meeting took place last Friday, and followed two weeks of intensive and constructive discussions with the new Budget Commissioner, Vice-President Georgieva, and other member states.
	As a result of those discussions, we achieved unanimous agreement that, first, expecting payment on 1 December was indeed unacceptable. The budget rules will therefore be rewritten to allow for a delay in any payment. In Britain’s case, that means that we will pay nothing this year, and will instead make payments in two instalments in July and September, in the second half of next year. Secondly, the suggestion that we might have to pay interest charges was rejected, and it was agreed unanimously that no interest would be charged on the delayed payments. Thirdly, in our discussion with the new European Commission, it was agreed that a full rebate would apply to the British payment, that the rebate would be specific, that it would be in addition to any other rebate that we might expect next year, and that, for the first time ever, it would be paid at the same time as any money owed.
	It had not been not clear that we would receive a rebate, let alone such a large one. No one in the House had suggested that we would. Only my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) had even asked a question about it. Indeed, it was only confirmed that we would receive a rebate, and a large one, by Vice-President Georgieva on 6 November, last Thursday evening. This means that Britain’s payments have been halved, from £1.7 billion to about £850 million.
	Finally, all member states agreed with us that the entire episode had been unacceptable, and a deal was therefore reached to make a permanent change in European law so that this would never happen again.
	In the face of this budget challenge, we have far exceeded the expectations and predictions that preceded Friday’s meeting. We have achieved a real result for
	Britain. The whole episode reminds us of the reform that we need in Europe—reform that Government Members believe should be put to a vote of the people of Britain.

Edward Balls: If this is such a good deal, why did the Chancellor not offer to make a statement? Why was he dragged to the House this afternoon? Talk about smoke and mirrors, Mr Speaker—I can barely see you through the Chancellor’s fog and bluster!
	Is not the truth that the Chancellor failed to reduce our contribution by a single penny? All he is doing is simply counting the rebate that was due anyway—a rebate that was never in doubt—in an attempt to fool people into thinking that the bill has been halved. His so-called victory is nothing more than a con trick.
	The Chancellor claims that the rebate was somehow in doubt, but that claim has been contradicted by everyone else. The EU Budget Commissioner was very clear when he said, on 27 October, in a statement on the backdated gross national income revisions,
	“the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional payments”.
	On Friday, having been asked whether the rebate was in doubt, the Vice-President of the Commission replied, “No, absolutely not.”
	On Friday, the Treasury was telling journalists that the Government had legal advice that the UK rebate somehow might not apply. If the legal advice exists, the Chancellor should publish it. Mr Barroso’s spokesperson, Mr Mark Gray, has directly contradicted the Treasury’s claims, saying:
	“Commission position on this clear at European Council—rebate was never in doubt”.
	The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan agrees. He said—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I wish to hear the views of Mr Daniel Hannan. Let us hear them.

Edward Balls: I’ll tell you what Mr Hannan said. He said:
	“it’s not credible to claim that it was ever in doubt”.
	The Dutch Finance Minister said that of course this
	“mechanism of the rebate will also apply”
	on the new contribution:
	“So it’s not as if the British have been given a discount today.”
	The Austrian Finance Minister said that
	“the amount cannot be put in question”,
	and the Irish Finance Minister confirmed
	“the UK will pay the whole amount.”
	They are queuing up to contradict the Chancellor.
	Let me ask the Chancellor this: can he name a single Finance Minister who is willing to go along with his desperate attempts to pull the wool over people’s eyes? And it is worse. The Financial Times reported:
	“Officials involved in the closed-door negotiations between finance ministers said Mr Osborne did not complain about the overall bill.”
	He didn’t even complain about the overall bill, Mr Speaker! I have here the minutes of Friday’s ECOFIN meeting: 21 pages, and not a single reference in those 21 pages to the UK rebate or the amount Britain owes being reduced.
	Is it not now clear that the Chancellor totally failed to get a better deal for the taxpayer? He did not reduce Britain’s backdated bill by a single penny. The British people don’t like being taken for fools, and his attempts to fool them have totally unravelled.

George Osborne: No, the British people do not like being taken for fools which is why the shadow Chancellor is in opposition. The shadow Chancellor is one of those people who is wise neither after the event nor before the event. How do we know that? Because he wrote an article in The Guardian last Friday. It appeared alongside another article called “Labour is doomed” by one of his colleagues, and in his article he set out four tests that I had to pass. The first test, he said, was that we needed a coalition of support, and he asked me about that again today. We had unanimous support around the ECOFIN table for the deal that was agreed. The second test he set me before the ECOFIN council was that we needed the support of Germany. Well, we went to Berlin and the German Finance Minister was central to the deal that we did. Thirdly, in this article, he said:
	“The Prime Minister should be clear about whether he intends to take the EU Commission to the European Court of Justice if they insist on the deadline of 1 December.”
	Well, we do not have a deadline of 1 December any more, because we did not challenge the law; we changed the law.
	So three tests passed, and here is the fourth and final test the shadow Chancellor set us: he said that the interest rates on any delayed payments should be fair. Well, I disagree. I do not think we should pay any interest at all, and we are not, but what is revealing about this fourth test is the number he himself gave for the fines Britain might face. He said:
	“Britain could face a…fine of £114,000 a day.”
	Does he confirm that that is what he said in the article: £114,000 a day? [Interruption.] Well, he has given himself away because £114,000 a day happens to be the EU penal interest on £1.7 billion, so the shadow Chancellor, who stands before us today and says he always knew the rebate would apply, is the same shadow Chancellor who on Friday said we would paying £1.7 billion.
	And of course the word “rebate” never appeared once in that article or, indeed, in any intervention from the Labour party on this issue. This whole question from the shadow Chancellor today is based on the absurd charade that he would stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe, but he gave away billions of pounds of the rebate, he signed us up to billions of pounds of eurozone bail-out, and he still refuses to give the British people a say on our future in Europe. May I suggest to him that he should leave the strong leadership in Europe to us, and he should get on with throwing over the weak leadership in the Labour party?

Hon. Members: More!

Andrew Tyrie: This is almost like Budget day. Was it not crass insensitivity on the part of the Commission to make such a demand on several countries in this way? The Government have negotiated an interest-free deferment and a reduction in the sum outstanding, and exactly what those are worth is something that the Treasury Committee will want to examine with the Chancellor in public session in due
	course. In the meantime, will he give us further details to assure us that such demands will not be made on us or any other country again?

George Osborne: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for what has been announced. There was agreement around the table that we should permanently change the EU budget rules. We shall have to consult the European Parliament on that, but it does not have a veto. We should change those rules so that if there is an exceptionally large payment or adjustment in future, as there was this time, member states cannot be bounced with a bill like this. There was strong support around the table for that change.

Frank Roy: On the UK rebate, will the Chancellor give us the name of just one European Finance Minister who changed their mind after listening to him?

George Osborne: As the hon. Gentleman should know, the rebate involves a discussion between member states and the European Commission, which is why we were discussing with the Commission, in parallel, the size of the British rebate. Frankly, any question from Labour Members about the rebate is a bit rich, given that they gave up half of it.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on getting rid of these punitive interest rates. I hope that he will refer the new rules that were decided at ECOFIN last Friday to my Committee so that we can scrutinise them properly. Is there any sound reason for our making any payment at all if those rules do not deal with the problem of other member states including their black economy in the statistical base that they use when putting forward their proposals? That greatly affects the whole basis on which the calculations are made.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the quality of the statistics. It was raised by the European Court of Auditors last week; it was also made forcefully by the Dutch Finance Minister at ECOFIN. The key point is that we can examine the numbers, and if there are errors we will get money repaid to us at the end of next year.

Geoffrey Robinson: Can the Chancellor explain why the EU Commissioner said on 27 October that the UK would benefit in any event from the rebate that was due? Also—this is at the heart of the problem—what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to suggest to the House, other than in a gross act of deception worthy more of Goebbels than of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing any member of the Government of engaging in deception. If he is, he must withdraw that term.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker; it was meant in a light-hearted manner.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful.

George Osborne: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman asked questions that had been prepared by the shadow Chancellor, but I have never before seen those questions being handed over in the Chamber. Nor do I think his embellishment of the question added much to it. If the rebate was always going to apply, and to such an extent, why did neither he nor any other Labour Member raise the matter? Why was it not mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s article in The Guardian? The shadow Chancellor says that the outcome was obvious, but the estimate of a £114,000 fine was based on a number of—

Edward Balls: indicated dissent.

George Osborne: He says no, but the penal rate is 2% above base, and 2% above base per day on a £1.7 billion charge is £114,000. Is that just an amazing coincidence?

Andrew Lansley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the deal last Friday. He was good enough to recall that, two weeks ago in the Chamber, I said that the rebate should apply to the additional demand on the UK’s contributions. Despite the shadow Chancellor’s assertions just now, the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about the rebate two weeks ago; he said nothing until my right hon. Friend actually secured it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rebate will still apply to UK net contributions in future years, as it would have done before? [Interruption.]

George Osborne: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wants to leave, because we were just talking about the presence of the Labour leader. As the hon. Gentleman said at the weekend:
	“‘I never believed the answer to Labour’s problems was to show people more of Ed Miliband.”
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is right; on 27 October, he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the position of the rebate. The Prime Minister said it was:
	“One of the important questions that needs to be asked and properly answered”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 30.]
	He said that that is what we are seeking to do. So my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to have asked the question—of course nobody from the Labour party did—and that is why we were engaged in the intensive discussions to nail down the rebate.

Kate Hoey: Does the Chancellor not agree that this whole fiasco just shows that we are paying far, far too much to the European Union, that we should be seeking ways of getting back control of our country, our own borders and our own system of justice, and that the sooner we get a referendum, the better?

George Osborne: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I made the point at the end of my remarks that the whole episode demonstrated why we needed reform
	in Europe. She, of course, is one of a growing number of Labour MPs who join us in wanting to see that referendum—I hope she can persuade the Labour Front-Bench team.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor agree that whatever deal he had obtained last Friday—even if he had come back bearing sackfuls of tribute in gold—it was wholly predictable that hard-line Eurosceptics would immediately say that this was robbery by Brussels and that the shadow Chancellor would immediately claim that, in some mysterious way, he could have produced some superior outcome for this country? Would the Chancellor accept my congratulations on a surprisingly good result that he achieved at that meeting, which I strongly suspect was a friendly discussion between 28 Finance Ministers and a Commissioner on a technical subject, and did not resemble the gunfight at the O. K. Corral, which is how everybody has to present European Council meetings and the debates we have on these subjects in this House?

George Osborne: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support; he is not always fulsome in his support of our European policies, so that is particularly appreciated. He is right that around the table were other members states that had been hit by this very large payment—the Dutch, the Italians, the Greeks and others—and therefore there was a lot of sympathy for trying to change the rules. In parallel, as he would know, there is a discussion with the Commission about the British rebate, which is properly a matter for the discussion with the Commission rather than ECOFIN.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Chancellor accept that, whatever is said about the rebate, this substantial bill for the United Kingdom still represents an EU penalty for stronger economic performance? Does he not think that there are better ways to spend £850 million than handing it over, albeit next year, to the European Union?

George Osborne: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the European Union could spend the money far better than it does through reform—that is the reform we are seeking to achieve. Of course membership of the European Union does mean adjustments to the payments each year, and sometimes Britain has been a beneficiary of them—indeed, when the shadow Chancellor put the country into recession we received a tiny bit of money back from the EU. That is one of the regular features of membership but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it demonstrates why we need further reform in Europe.

Martin Horwood: The last time the shadow Chancellor mentioned the EU rebate in this House appears to have been in 2005. Does the Chancellor agree that, if the shadow Chancellor really thought the bill we were being presented with by the Commission was £800 million out, it is curious that he did not find time to mention it before this week?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Of course the only involvement the shadow Chancellor has ever had with the rebate is giving away half of it.

Stewart Hosie: The rules that determined this payment were agreed in May, without discussion. The UK participated fully in those discussions, and had two formal opportunities to respond but did not do so—indeed, there was not a single signal from the UK that there was a problem until late October. Is the truth not that this performance by the UK Government has less to do with payments to Europe and more about pandering to the open wound of anti-Europeanism from the Members who sit behind the Chancellor?

George Osborne: If the separatists had had their way, Scotland would not be in the European Union. But I make this point: Commission Vice-President Georgieva confirmed in the press conference afterwards that there was no way that member states could have known the net figure until 17 October, which was when the official meeting took place in Brussels. That has also been confirmed by the Dutch Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission. Again, this is one of those examples in which the shadow Chancellor says that he knew better than the rest of us, but those Heads of Government confirm that Britain could have known only in late October.

Heather Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is this a superb deal for the UK, but if the people vote for a Conservative Government in May 2015, the people will have a vote in a referendum about it?

George Osborne: As my hon. Friend says, the key point is that we are offering the people of Britain a vote on the membership of the European Union, which we will then seek to reform. Interestingly, it is not only the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who has made her point on Europe, but the last Labour Chancellor, who says he now supports a referendum on Europe. It would be interesting to see what the shadow Chancellor really thinks.

Gisela Stuart: I am still trying to find a serious commentator who did not think that the rebate would apply to the British contribution. All this banter covers the fact that the Chancellor has not made any progress in reforming the system that led to this completely absurd demand, which made Britain pay and France and Germany receive money.

George Osborne: I agree that this was a totally unacceptable approach from the previous European Commission. To be fair to the new budget Commissioner, she has engaged constructively and got the rules changed so that it does not happen again. On the hon. Lady’s comment about finding a serious commentator who thought the rebate might not apply, I know the shadow Chancellor is not a serious commentator but he did not at any point raise this issue. The calculation on interest payments that he used in The Guardian on Friday was based on the assumption that we would pay £1.7 billion—that is how he came up with the number that he used to make his point. As a result, he did not expect the rebate to be applied or to be applied at this rate.

Edward Leigh: The shadow Chancellor says that this reduction is entirely down to the rebate. So, if Tony Blair had not given away half the rebate, would we have got a 100% reduction?

George Osborne: Sadly not is the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question. The Prime Minister we should credit for the rebate is Margaret Thatcher.

Paul Flynn: May I try to help the Chancellor? He is in danger of becoming illiterate as well as innumerate. The word “result”, which he used once today and three times last week, can mean a win, a loss or a draw or, as in this case, a confidence trick.

George Osborne: I take it as a win for Britain. Again, I do not want to follow lessons from Labour MPs about how to negotiate in Europe when they gave up much of the rebate, signed us into the eurozone bail-outs, gave up many of our vetoes over many years and refused to give the British people a say in referendums in key treaties.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend know who my constituents believe is most in need of this money, the UK or the EU?

George Osborne: At a time when budgets are tough, I completely understand why people want the maximum amount of money possible to be spent at home, but the truth is that we have been able to get a reduction in the EU budget because of the tough negotiations of the British Prime Minister. That is what we are able to achieve by standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe.

Mark Durkan: Will the Chancellor help us better to understand what he is presenting as a masterful feat by telling us: what he did not know; when and for how long he did not know it; and why he did not know it?

George Osborne: It was not clear that this exceptional demand for a payment would have the British rebate applied or indeed to what extent the rebate would be applied. The amount was confirmed to us only last Thursday evening.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Is the Chancellor surprised by the number of EU budget experts who now seem to be appearing on the Opposition Benches? Does he, like me, wonder where they all were when former Chancellors were happily signing off flawed EU accounts or giving away our rebate?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; they gave into all Europe’s demands and handed over more and more British taxpayers’ money. They were neither wise before this event, nor particularly wise after it.

Barry Gardiner: Can the Chancellor confirm that when the EU budget is reconciled, it will show that the surcharge to the UK was paid in full, that it will show quite separately that there was a rebate that was applied, and that therefore his attempts to link the two are simply nonsense?

George Osborne: What we achieved was the simultaneous application of the rebate, so we will pay only £850 million.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on maintaining the application of the UK rebate in a way that the Opposition utterly
	failed to do when they were in power. Would he have been strengthened in that position had he maintained a euro preparations unit in the Treasury?

George Osborne: The first and kindest cut of all was closing down the euro preparations unit, which I discovered in the Treasury on coming to office.

Luciana Berger: I know that the Chancellor did not want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), but I will try again. Can he please name one EU Finance Minister who supports his version of events?

George Osborne: All 28 countries, and therefore 27 other Finance Ministers, agreed to our plan, and the plan put forward by other member states, to change the rules so that we do not have to pay on 1 December, to enable us to delay payment, to ensure that no interest will be paid during that delay, to ensure that any errors in the accounts will be rectified and that we will be compensated for them next year, and to ensure that this never happens again. We got that coalition of support around the table. The discussions on the rebate, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, happen between the UK and the European Commission.

Duncan Hames: After all the to-ing and fro-ing over who should pay what, would not the best way to thank our European friends be to show them how to make savings in the cost of Brussels so that the costs paid by each country becomes more affordable, both for us and for their shrinking economies?

George Osborne: We want to achieve reform in Europe. The hon. Gentleman mentions Brussels, and I suggest that they could make a start by staying there and not going to Strasbourg.

Graham Stringer: Some €1 billion is still an exceptional surcharge on this country’s finances. Will the Chancellor put his deal to a binding vote in this House?

George Osborne: We have the normal scrutiny methods. Indeed, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and I have already discussed my happily answering questions from members of the Committee, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has his Committee as well.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worrying that the shadow Chancellor forgot to mention the rebate before today? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to make a detailed calculation of exactly how much less Britain would have to pay had Labour not given away the rebate in the first place?

George Osborne: Of course, giving away the rebate cost Britain billions a year. My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the pattern of forgetfulness on the Opposition Front Bench. They forget about the
	deficit and about immigration, and now they forget about the rebate. It reminds everyone why the British public are quite clear that they are unfit for government.

Sammy Wilson: Regardless of whether the bill has been rebated, does the Chancellor not recognise that for many UK citizens facing cuts in public services, £850 million extra going to a body which has not had its accounts signed off for 19 years, wastes billions through fraud and spends money on vanity projects, is not good value and that they object to it?

George Osborne: I completely understand the anger and frustration felt by all our constituents at the way money is spent by the European Union. That is why we are seeking reform and why both the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see the British people asked for their consent in a referendum.

Tony Baldry: Was my right hon. Friend surprised to see the shadow Chancellor in his place here today? My reading of the Daily Mirror was that the shadow Chancellor was going to make a speech in support of the Leader of the Opposition—I apologise to the House; I misread that. The shadow Chancellor is going to be making a speech in support of the Leader of the Opposition in the next fortnight.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful, but the question suffered from the disadvantage of being irrelevant to the matter under discussion, so we will move on to someone who has a relevant question to ask.

Philip Hollobone: Confirmation that the rebate will be applied is clearly to be welcomed, but the blunt truth is that this country faces a bill £850 million larger than it faced two weeks previously. Given that we now pay more than £10 billion a year as our membership fee for this organisation, my constituents in Kettering feel that the bill is too large. Will the Chancellor confirm that a majority Conservative Government will renegotiate the membership fee after the next election?

George Osborne: As I say, I understand the frustration that many people feel about the way their money—hard-earned taxpayers’ money—is spent in Europe. That is why we are seeking a reform of Britain’s relationship with Europe and a reform of the way Europe works for all its citizens, and why we are seeking to put that to the British people in a referendum. With reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), it is good to see the shadow Chancellor here, breaking off from the Balls family pastime of undermining the Leader of the Opposition.

Nia Griffith: The Chancellor read out to us the Prime Minister’s response to the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) about the rebate, but can he explain why, in all that feigned anger, the Prime Minister did not explain about the rebate? Was it because the Chancellor had not shared that knowledge with the Prime Minister, or was it because the pair of them were in it together, ready to pull out a white rabbit last Friday?

George Osborne: I am not sure what a white rabbit has to do with it, but it was not clear that the rebate would apply. That is precisely why we were engaged in intensive discussions with the European Commission, and it is why, universally in this House and in the media, people were talking about a figure of £1.7 billion. It was not clear, but we achieved the application of the rebate, and as a result the bill is £850 million.

James Arbuthnot: I think I am missing something here. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the only reason we are discussing the payment of an EU surcharge at all is because of the stunningly impressive handling of the economy by my right hon. Friend?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend is very kind. One of the reasons why this surcharge, as he puts it, has arisen is because of the strong UK economic performance relative to the continent of Europe. We should not be happy about the poor performance of the European continent. We want the European continent to be performing better.

David Crausby: Has not Britain had the rebate for a very long time? Can someone therefore tell me why the Chancellor has only just found out how it works? He was taken by surprise by the £1.7 billion bill in the first place, and now he belatedly discovers the rebate. How can the House have any confidence that the Chancellor knows what is going on?

George Osborne: The House can have confidence that this Government fight for Britain’s interests in Europe, because we have cut the EU budget, got us out of those disastrous eurozone bail-outs that the Labour Government put us into, and had the rebate applied—a rebate which, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party wanted to get rid of.

Ben Gummer: Given the fact that the shadow Chancellor and almost everyone on the Opposition Front Bench with him has been completely absent from the airwaves in the past few days in support of their leader, one would have thought that they had ample opportunity to proffer advice on the rebate. I did not hear it. Did my right hon. Friend hear it privately from them?

George Osborne: I do not want to discourage members of the Opposition Front-Bench team from taking to the airwaves and criticising their leader, because it is very good. It is only after the event that we hear that they think he is useless. They did not tell us that beforehand. My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition did not raise the issue—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor calls me to the House of Commons, he has nothing to say for himself and he has no answer to the fact that his own article reveals that he thought we were going to be paying £1.7 billion. It just confirms that he is not up to the job.

Clive Efford: I think the Chancellor should calm down when it comes to leadership and loyalty. Why did we have a by-election last month that his party lost to the UK Independence party and why do we have another one this month? Will he confirm that the ECOFIN Ministers he discussed the rebate
	with are of the opinion that we will pay no less than we would have done if we had paid the full £1.7 billion on 1 December and then received our rebate?

George Osborne: As I have already said, it was not clear that the rebate would apply, which is why the shadow Chancellor, in his article in The Guardian, uses a number that assumes that we are going to pay £1.7 billion. That is what he thought we were going to pay, but we negotiated hard and had intensive discussions, and as a result we have got this result for Britain.

Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was the UK’s leadership in Europe that resulted in the deal being struck that has enabled all nine countries that were being surcharged by the EU to delay their payment until 1 September next year? Does he agree that such leadership in Europe bodes well for our renegotiations next year, after the Conservative party has won the next general election?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we needed the agreement of all the member states for this budget deal. Any one of them could have blocked the deal, but we got the support of all the other 27 member states, not just to delay the payment and have no interest applied but permanently to change the rules.

Andrew Love: For the fourth time, I think, in this House, may I press the Chancellor to tell us which Foreign Minister or which Commission official agrees with his interpretation of the rebate?

George Osborne: As I say, it required the agreement of all 28 member states to get the budget deal at ECOFIN. The discussion on the British rebate was a discussion had with the Commission. The Commission confirmed that the rebate would apply, and apply in the amount it did, only on Thursday night. The hon. Gentleman also serves on the Treasury Committee. If he, like every other Labour Member, was so wise about the number, why were they not saying this beforehand? Not a single Labour MP, either in the Chamber of the House of Commons or on the media, said anything other than that we would be paying £1.7 billion. They are trying to be wise after the event, and they have been found out.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Chancellor agree that one additional way to help the EU budget would be to clamp down on corporate tax evasion in places such as Luxembourg?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right that we need fair tax arrangements. The European Commission is looking at that through some of its state aid action on particular tax deals done in some member states. However, we do not want to move to a common tax policy across Europe whereby there is a single corporation tax rate and the like. I am in favour of competitive business taxes, but competitive business taxes that are fairly paid. That is the policy that we pursue in the UK and that we are seeking international agreement on and making a lot of progress on.

William Bain: Since the Council meeting on Friday, the Finance Ministers of Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands have all said that the UK will still pay the full amount. Is the Chancellor seriously arguing that they are wrong, and if so, can he point to a single measure that will cut the overall bill for the UK taxpayer over the next two years?

George Osborne: We were presented with a bill for £1.7 billion and we are going to pay about £850 million, so in my book that is a cut.

Mary Macleod: May I congratulate the Chancellor on the excellent deal that he has achieved in Europe? As a better woman than me once said, there is no such thing as Government money, only taxpayers’ money. Does he agree that the people who benefit from this negotiation are hard-working British taxpayers?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, this is not the Government’s money: it is the people’s money—taxpayers’ money. People work very hard to earn money and then they pay taxes on it, and it is the policy of the Conservative party to keep taxes as low as possible.

Gavin Shuker: Given that the relationship between GDP and the European Union budget was understood before this series of events, and yet the Government appeared to be asleep at the wheel, what was the reason for their reluctance in getting their act together properly in the first place? Was it the Chancellor’s unwillingness to fess up to the Prime Minister or to stand up to his Back Benchers?

George Osborne: I am not sure it was worth waiting 45 minutes for that question. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the President of the European Commission and the vice-president of the European Commission with responsibility for the budget all said that it was not clear until late October what the amount would be. That is why, the moment we found out, we got it on the European Council agenda, and the European Council agreed that it would be discussed at ECOFIN.

Paul Uppal: This weekend marked the 19th year in which the European Union has failed to sign off its accounts. Does that not make the case for a referendum and reform compelling? The harsh binary truth is that during this parliamentary Session the only Members who have pushed that agenda are sitting on this side of the House.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are pushing the case for reform in Europe while the Opposition want no reform in Europe. The people of Wolverhampton and elsewhere in the country have a very clear choice at the election. If they vote Labour, they will pay more to Europe; there will be no reform in Europe; Europe will continue to hold back the British economy because it is unreformed; and, of course, they will have no say. If they vote for the Conservative party, they will get a say on Britain’s future in Europe.

Wayne David: The Irish Finance Minister has said:
	“My understanding is that the UK will pay the whole amount”.
	Is the Chancellor seriously saying that the Irish Finance Minister is wrong?

George Osborne: As I have already explained, the negotiation and discussion on the rebate are had with the European Commission. The full amount, which was universally discussed in this House beforehand and by the shadow Chancellor in The Guardian, was £1.7 billion. As a result of our negotiation and intensive discussion, we will be paying £850 million.

David Rutley: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has secured a change in the way that the surcharge formulas are calculated. Can he confirm that the UK will never be penalised in this way again for a strong economic performance?

George Osborne: We will never face such a large payment or such an unexpected period of time in which to pay, which is why we are getting permanent changes to the budget rules. That requires the consent of all member states, and we have that.

Tom Blenkinsop: The UK’s deficit at the moment is the worst in the European Union. Will the Chancellor be selling that as a result as well?

George Osborne: Some of us remember inheriting a budget deficit of 11.5% from the previous Labour Government. It has fallen by more than a third. We will get the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility in December.

Edward Balls: It’s going up!

George Osborne: Let us get it on the record that the shadow Chancellor says that the budget deficit is going up. We will wait for the forecasts at the beginning of December and see who is right.

Marcus Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this deal, but the situation adds to the frustration that many of my constituents have with the EU. Does that not show that we need to renegotiate such matters and then give people in my constituency, my right hon. Friend’s constituency and constituencies across the country an in/out referendum so that they can decide whether they want to stay in the EU?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Nuneaton and across the country will have their chance to vote on whether Britain stays in the European Union. I want to see reform in Europe and I want to put that reform to the British people. The only way the British people will have that say is if they vote for my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members.

Kerry McCarthy: My constituents would have expected the Chancellor to negotiate the best possible deal on a rebate. They would also have expected him to negotiate down the surcharge. Is it not the case that he has not done the latter at all? It is not a penny less than it would have been and the accounts will show that the figure is still £1.7 billion.

Heather Wheeler: You would have paid the whole lot!

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point that the hon. Lady would have paid the whole lot. We are paying £850 million because of the application of the rebate.

Andrew Bridgen: I congratulate the Chancellor on halving the recent EU demand in record time. I wish he had just continued a little longer, because with his skills he might have got us a net refund. Does he agree that for those for whom this result is not enough, nothing would ever have been enough? Does he also agree that, however distasteful we might find it, while we are in a club we have to abide by the rules, and that only a future Conservative Government will give the people a say—and a chance to leave the club—in a referendum in 2017?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the reform we seek in Europe is reform to make sure that the money that British taxpayers pay is well spent. Indeed, we want to make sure that the money of all European citizens is well spent in Europe. He is absolutely right that the only way to get that reform is with a Conservative Government, and then the British people can decide in a referendum.

Ian Lucas: Will the Chancellor name one European Commission official who asserted to him, or will he release correspondence from the European Commission indicating, that the rebate did not apply in this case?

George Osborne: As I have already said, the rebate and its size were only confirmed to us by the European Commission—by the vice-president for the budget—last Thursday night.

David Mowat: Roughly speaking, the previous Government gave away 20% of our rebate. Based on that logic, they have just cost us a further 20% of £1.7 billion. Does the Chancellor agree that they have just cost us another £340 million?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend underestimates what the previous Labour Government cost us. They actually cost us billions of pounds a year in the rebate that they gave away. That is yet another reason why the idea that they could fight for our interests in Europe is obviously false: we saw what they did when they were in office.

Bill Esterson: My constituents want a Chancellor who will work with our European partners to create well-paid jobs for ordinary people to
	reverse the decline in living standards over which he has presided. What they do not want is a Chancellor who tries to pull the wool over their eyes after failing to negotiate with our partners, while making false promises and claims about a budget rebate that was always going to happen.

George Osborne: As I have said, we worked with the other member states to achieve the deal at ECOFIN. We needed the agreement of the other member states on the delay, paying no interest and the permanent change in the rules. It is always good to get lectures from Labour Members about working with and supporting colleagues, so we look forward to the shadow Chancellor’s speech supporting his leader in the next couple of weeks. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I know that he is a man true to his word.

Mark Garnier: Much of this discussion has centred on the rebate, but has my right hon. Friend done any calculations of the value of the forgone interest that would be paid as a result of the extension of the date for this payment from 1 December to the middle of next year?

George Osborne: Of course, the shadow Chancellor estimated that it would cost £114,000 a year, which is the EU penal rate on £1.7 billion. If interest had been charged even on the rebateable amount, it would of course have been about half that figure.

Richard Drax: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting half the money back? That is certainly a step in the right direction. However, does it not show that one economic cap does not fit all in the EU, and never ever will?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. That is why previous Conservative Governments achieved things such as the opt-out from the single currency, even though the previous Labour Government toyed with the idea of joining the single currency, which reveals—

Greg Hands: It is still their policy.

George Osborne: The Government Deputy Chief Whip reminds us that it is still official Labour policy to join the single currency. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is right that different economic models and different economic policies are appropriate for different countries, but I would make the broad point that freer markets and lower taxes seem to help most countries.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: Before we come to the main business, I have a statement to make on the handling of it. Several hon. and right hon. Members have asked me to rule on the scope of each of the two motions today relating to the protocol 36 opt-in regulations. It might be of assistance to Members intending to take part in the debates if I do so now. On the business of the House motion, any debate should focus on the time to be allocated to the subsequent debate and the putting of the question at its conclusion. Members will have to exercise some ingenuity if they wish to raise other matters, such as the absence of an opportunity for the House to express an opinion or to vote on all or any of the related matters not contained in the regulations. Such remarks must demonstrate a reasonable connection with the business of the House proposition before the House.
	On the substantive motion to approve the regulations, which I understand transpose into UK law 10 of the 35 measures the Government have decided that the UK should rejoin, I will be prepared to offer some latitude in permitting reference to the merits or otherwise of rejoining those related measures not requiring transposition and therefore not in the regulations, as listed in the Government’s explanatory memorandum on the regulations. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to lighten the burden on the Chair by holding in their minds the actual question before the House. The Chair and the House can deal only with what is on the Order Paper.

Points of Order

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Alec Shelbrooke: We haven’t started.

Mr Speaker: Order. That was an exceptionally ignorant observation from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). If he would sit quietly and listen, instead of pontificating from ignorance, he might one of these days learn something.

Yvette Cooper: Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the motion on the Order Paper refers to the criminal justice and data protection regulations, which, as you have said, include 11 measures, none of which is the European arrest warrant? Will you therefore confirm that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant today?

Mr Speaker: I can. Members can interpret all they like, but there will not today be a vote on the specific matter of membership of the European arrest warrant. That is the reality.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I will come to other Members, as these are important matters that have considerably and understandably exercised hon. and right hon. Members, but first I call Yvette Cooper on that point of order.

Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your response, which is very clear. The Home Secretary wrote to me on 9 November and said that she wanted to be absolutely clear that Monday’s debate and vote in the House of Commons would be a debate and vote on the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant. Will you therefore confirm that that is not correct?

Mr Speaker: I stand by what I have said. The House will understand that in doing so I do not act entirely alone and certainly I do not do so without studying the matters and taking the advice of disinterested experts. That is what I have done, because that is my responsibility. The Home Secretary, of course, can offer her own take on the matter and doubtless she will do so. I have advanced the position in what I believe to be factual terms, unadorned but benefiting from expert advice.

Angela Eagle: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On 29 October, the Prime Minister said:
	“I am not delaying having a vote on it”—
	that is, the European arrest warrant—and:
	“There will be a vote on it.”
	He went on to say that
	“we are going to have a vote, we going to have it before the Rochester by-election”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
	Have you had any indication from the Leader of the House whether there will be an emergency business statement so that we can facilitate a vote on the European arrest warrant rather than on everything but the European arrest warrant?

Mr Speaker: There are two answers to the hon. Lady. First, I have had no indication whatever that a Minister intends to make an emergency statement to the House. Secondly, I do not think that it is for me to seek to interpret the comments of the Prime Minister. It would be presumptuous of me to do so and would require probably a degree of sophistication that I do not claim that the Chair possesses.

Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you accept that it is likely that the issues that Members will wish to raise in the course of today’s debate, on whichever side of the argument, will be very similar for all of the 35 measures that the Government propose to opt back into and the more than 100 measures they are opting out of? Although I accept your ruling on the technical meaning of the vote at the end, will you allow a broad interpretation of what is relevant to the debate, because at the root of it is the competence of the EU in these issues and the use that is made in this country of the 35 measures that the Government are seeking to opt into?

Mr Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have known for 20 years, that I do not feel entirely confident in anticipating what, as he puts it, is likely to be said. However, I am probably not blessed with the degree of prescience that he possesses. He possesses great prescience. I have indicated an intention to offer some latitude to Members of the House, because I think that that is what Members, in these rather imperfectly configured circumstances, would expect.
	I was asked the specific question, “Is the vote on the European arrest warrant?” The simple and straightforward answer—I, like the public, believe in straightforward dealings—is no, it is not. That is the end of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I will take further points of order, but we cannot deal with these matters indefinitely. Let us hear from a knight from Lincolnshire.

Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am completely confused now. I read in all my Sunday newspapers that we would be debating the European arrest warrant today and that we would have a vote. Apparently, there was going to be a rebellion, but I know nothing about that. Apparently, we are not now voting on the European arrest warrant. What are we voting on?

Mr Speaker: The answer is that we are voting on the regulations, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied comprehensively. When he says that he is confused, I find it hard to credit. He is a sophisticated barrister and has served in the House for 31 years and five months—[Interruption.] Yes, and a day. He has served in the House for 31 years, five months and a day, so I cannot believe that he is confused about anything.
	Nine hon. Members wrote to me, presumably independently of each other because I do not think that Members are in the habit of sharing their letters to the Speaker with each other, to indicate that they intended to speak in the debate on the European arrest warrant. They obviously all thought the same thing. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I, too, thought that we would be debating and voting on the European arrest warrant. However, I ask him to bear it in mind that I am just the Speaker. Government Whips sometimes have another language altogether, which only they understand.

Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the confusion and secrecy that there has clearly been, the difference between your clear advice to us and the Home Secretary’s letter to me, and the fact that the Home Secretary is sitting here, do you not think that this is a great opportunity for her to stand at the Dispatch Box and make a point of order to clarify the position—are we voting on the European arrest warrant or not?

Mr Speaker: It is open to the Home Secretary to do so. She may feel that she wants to set out her thoughts in the debate, and she is welcome to do that.
	In all courtesy, I must come to the point of order from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your helpful reply to my inquiry on this matter. Is it not right that debates are, on most days, in the hands of the Government? They are perfectly capable of putting down clear motions that people will understand. If they want a vote on the arrest warrant, they can have one. Does this not seem to you, as it does to me, to be procedural prestidigitation to persuade people that they are voting on something on which they are not really voting? Would it not be better if the Government were to put down a clear motion on some future day that we could vote on properly?

Mr Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that all sorts of things might be better, as he puts it, but as I said in my statement, the Chair and the House can deal only with what is on the Order Paper. I understand, because it has been communicated to me by several Members, that there is considerable irritation on this matter. I absolutely understand that, but what I am trying to do, operating within the limits of the powers of the Chair, is to facilitate the will of the House. I have only a partial ability to do that—I cannot create a vote for which provision has not been made—but the House will want to debate what the House wants to debate. In future, it would be better if these matters were handled in a way that is straightforward, and if the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for the honouring of commitments were to be met.

John Redwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for you excellent clarification so far. Will you confirm my understanding that the mighty issue of opting in and giving away major powers from this House is also
	not on the Order Paper, so the House cannot vote for or against that massive opt-in and surrender of power today?

Mr Speaker: I think it is probably safest for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I leave that for him to interpret. I do not want to embarrass him, but he has an intellect truly frightening, so I am quite sure he can interpret these matters to his own satisfaction.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you will allow some latitude in the debate later on, because I always like it when you allow a certain amount of latitude in the House.
	The Home Secretary wrote to the shadow Home Secretary saying:
	“The Government has been clear throughout that Parliament should have the opportunity to vote on the final package—
	which includes the arrest warrant—
	“before we formally notify Europe of our desire to remain bound by it.”
	We may debate whatever we want, but what really matters is what we have voted for and what, in the end, goes into law and is resolved by virtue of what we have voted on. Can you make it clear that the Government have been extremely unwise to proceed in this way, and that legal uncertainty will remain unless we are absolutely clear that by virtue of what we are voting on this afternoon, we will not be notifying the European Union of joining the European arrest warrant?

Mr Speaker: All we can do today is have a debate, and after that debate Members will have either to vote for or against the regulations or decide to abstain upon them. What motions might or might not be put forward on a subsequent occasion, either to satisfy Members’ appetite or for the purposes of the clarity that the hon. Gentleman hankers after, is another matter. That, of course, is in the hands of the usual channels.
	I think I have given a fairly clear indication that this has been a rather sorry saga and that the House should not be put in this position. Most of us think that a commitment made is a commitment that should be honoured, and we should try to operate according to sensible standards rather than trying to slip things through by some sort of artifice. It may be the sort of thing that some people think is very clever, but people outside the House expect straightforward dealing, and they are frankly contemptuous—I use the word advisedly —of what is not straight dealing. Let us try to learn from this experience and do better.

Pete Wishart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you not simply rule that this is an utter and absolute shambles? Have you any explanation of how we have got to this sorry state?

Mr Speaker: I have expressed my own thoughts to the House on how we should proceed, and I have tried to be very fair and candid about the matter. Whatever opinion people have about these matters, they will express it, and that is nothing to do with the Chair.
	I cannot really go further than I have gone today. The handling of matters in the future, as ordinarily, is in the hands of the business managers. In the best, pragmatic British tradition, what we must do is work with what we have before the House today and, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, do our best.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the House is most indebted to you for your ruling. It is being said that tonight’s vote will be a proxy for a vote on the European arrest warrant. Is there anything in Standing Orders to allow a vote on one issue to be treated as a proxy for a vote on another?

Mr Speaker: It is not for me to interpret individual votes. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is anything in the Standing Orders about how a vote on one matter can be considered to be a proxy for another, and the straightforward, factual answer—as I think he knows—is that no, there is not. I am not aware that anybody is suggesting that there should be, but do not give them ideas.

Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it clear that the debate is about 10 powers being transposed, excluding the European arrest warrant. Can you make clear that in the event that the House votes down that motion, the Government will still be free to go forward with the 35 measures they want, without reference to the House?

Mr Speaker: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he is getting a bit beyond himself. I have said that the debate is about the regulations. I have been very fair and quite fulsome in my responses to colleagues’ inquiries, to try to give straight answers. We should probably leave it there—

David Winnick: rose—

Mr Speaker: Except, of course, that I cannot refuse to take a point of order from somebody who first entered the House in 1966.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think there is general agreement that what has emerged from these points of order has not in any way improved the reputation of the House of Commons. You said a few moments ago that we should know precisely what we are debating, and that the public outside certainly will not. Do you therefore feel that there is a case for the sitting to be suspended for a short period in order—given the usual way in which these matters are looked on by the usual channels—for us to have clarification before the debate begins? I emphasise that the reputation of the House of Commons is not so high that we should go through this farce.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I always treat what he says with great seriousness and respect. The reason I do not think we should travel that route is first that we are where we are and, as I have said, I think pragmatically that we should deal with the circumstances that exist. Secondly, a business of the House motion will give people the chance to say their piece on the allocation of time and, with latitude, more widely on the handling of these matters—matters to which I think we should now progress.

Business of the House (Today)

Chris Grayling: I beg to move,
	That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), debate on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Criminal Law may continue until 10.00pm, at which time the Speaker shall put the Question, if it has not already been decided.
	Having listened carefully to the strictures in your initial statement, Mr Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief to leave time for the full debate and the latitude that, as you expressed, would be permissible. The points that have been raised on the European arrest warrant will be addressed by the Home Secretary in her speech. I also want to explain to the House why I will not be able to support the Home Secretary in the main debate today. In my capacity as Lord Chancellor I have to speak at the lord mayor’s banquet tonight, and will not be able to take part in that debate.—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The lord mayor’s banquet will have the joyous benefit of hearing the Secretary of State, which is right and proper. For the time being, however, the House should have the joyous benefit of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. It was in some danger of not having that opportunity because of excessive kerfuffle. Let us hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

Chris Grayling: The Government have brought forward this debate so that the House can consider legislation to ensure that domestic law is compliant with a package of 35 measures that the Government seek to rejoin. The motion is to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny by extending today’s debate beyond that of a normal statutory instrument. I want to be clear that the debate and vote will be taken as a vote on the whole package of 35 measures as a whole, and I urge the House to support this business motion.

Yvette Cooper: What a shambles! What complete chaos! The Justice Secretary is scuttling away and will not even stay for the debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) suggested we suspend the sitting to allow the House to come back with a more sensible business motion. We will happily suspend the House. It would allow the Justice Secretary to go for his dinner and come back again, and we could then vote later on a more sensible measure.
	The Justice Secretary stood there and I heard him say that this was a vote on the whole package of 35 measures. That is in direct contradiction to your ruling and your advice to this House, Mr Speaker. We were told that the business motion today would give us a proper debate. The Whips are scuttling away to try to do some quick dealing to sort out the mess and chaos that the Home Secretary has left the House in today. This was supposed to be a proper debate on the European arrest warrant—the motion will allow no such thing.
	The Home Secretary told me, in a letter I received this weekend, that
	“Monday’s vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures …and in this case a whole day is being made available for the debate rather than the usual 90 minutes.”
	The whole reason for this business motion, and the whole reason we have the suspension of Standing Orders and the extra time for the debate, is because the Home Secretary told us that this would be a debate on 35 measures, including the European arrest warrant. That is what this business motion is supposed to achieve, but it is a joke. Instead, we have a vote on 11 regulations—regulations we support and will vote for—that do not include the European arrest warrant. This is what the motion states:
	“That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014…be approved.”
	What do the draft regulations say? Not the 35 measures the Government want to opt back into; just 11 good sensible measures, none of which is the European arrest warrant. We have today a business motion on a false premise. This is what the Committee Chairs have said:
	“The motion to be considered by the House of Commons concerns a Statutory Instrument…which is only intended to complete the implementation, in UK law, of 10 of the 35 measures the Government proposes to rejoin. It has no direct relevance to the European Arrest Warrant, the most contentious of the 35 measures, or to UK participation in EU Agencies such as Europol or Eurojust.”
	That is what they said at the end of last week. That is why I wrote to the Home Secretary at the end of last week to ask her to clarify the matter for the House. That is why she then wrote to me and said that this included the whole package of 35 measures.
	The Prime Minister promised us a vote, and that is what the business motion should achieve. The Leader of the Opposition asked him:
	“A vital tool…is the European arrest warrant. Why is the Prime Minister delaying having a vote on it?”
	The Prime Minister said:
	“I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on it.”
	The Leader of the Opposition offered our help. He said:
	“We will give him the time for a vote on the European arrest warrant, and we will help him to get it through.”
	The Prime Minister said again,
	“we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”.——[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
	So where is it? Instead, the Home Secretary forgot to put it in the motion.
	Why does the Home Secretary want to play into the hands of those who might challenge the European arrest warrant in the courts by not having a straightforward vote? Why not just put the three words “European arrest warrant” on the Order Paper and allow us a vote? Yes, some Back Benchers would vote against it, but Labour would vote for it and support the Home Secretary because we think it is the right thing to do. Why not let Parliament have the vote it was promised?
	We have just had three quarters of an hour of the Chancellor trying his smoke and mirrors trick, but the Home Secretary has gone one step further with a disappearing magic trick! One minute the European arrest warrant is there, the next minute it is gone. One minute you see it, the next it disappears. It’s her Paul Daniels act! Unfortunately, she has sent the Justice Secretary to be her glamorous assistant Debbie McGee and to come and present it to the House! She thinks they’ll like it—not a lot, but she thinks they’ll like it! [Laughter.] The business motion is a complete joke.
	She should withdraw it and come back with more sensible proposals.
	We will vote for the regulations, but we will vote against this business motion, because it is a joke, a complete nonsense. It does not provide Parliament with the vote we need on the European arrest warrant, but is simply because the Government are scared of a rebellion. They want to say one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group. They are not being straight with the House. The Home Secretary knows she is playing fast and loose with very serious measures on tackling crime and national security. It is irresponsible, and it is playing fast and loose with Parliament as well. I urge her and the Justice Secretary to rethink, ditch this business motion, come back with something more sensible and let us vote on the measures this country needs.

William Cash: This is a disgraceful way of going about a very important matter. It is tainted with chicanery. It is not the way that Parliament should be treated. Right from the very beginning of this issue, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee have complained about the lack of transparency and consultation and the manner in which the Home Secretary has been treating the House. It is completely unbelievable that she should come to the House and, presumably, try to argue—as we shall discover in due course—that this is about the EAW when it clearly is not.
	If the motion were a Bill, it would be dealt with in separate clauses and parts, all of which could be amended, but this motion is unamendable. That has not yet been properly considered. This is being done to avoid a real decision being taken today, as was promised to us by the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago, and by the Home Secretary in the article in The Sunday Telegraph and in the letter that the shadow Home Secretary referred to. This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings, and that is a reason in itself to vote against the business motion, as I shall be doing. I could give many other reasons for doing so, but it is fundamentally about a lack of transparency and honesty in going about issues we need to deal with.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

William Cash: I am sorry that the Home Secretary is shaking her head, because she knows perfectly well that this is a trick and an attempt to get round the reality of what is facing us: this is not just about law and order, but about the European Court of Justice and the opportunities being created to bypass this House and our own courts. It is a disgrace.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I co-signed a letter with him and the Chair of the Justice Select Committee over the weekend to express our concern about how this legislation is being put through the House.
	Mr Speaker, you were clear that this was not a vote on the EAW, but the Lord Chancellor, when he moved the business motion, told the House that we were voting on the full package of 35 measures, so that voting for the motion would allow the Government to inform the European Commission that we had opted back into the 35 measures. Mr Speaker, I prefer to accept your ruling that this is about the 10 regulations, not the EAW. The Select Committee was clear that the House should have the opportunity to vote on the EAW separately, because we felt that it was controversial and had huge implications for the British people. The position of the European Scrutiny Committee is that we should vote on each of the 35 measures. I am not against that idea; I just do not think we can do that tonight. We will need additional time to do so.
	I share all the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is a shambolic attempt to get a vote on an issue of fundamental importance to the British people. I hope the motion will be withdrawn to give us an opportunity to vote on these measures.

Menzies Campbell: From time to time during my career here, the procedures of the House have stood in the way of its intention. Often on these occasions, the matters have been resolved on the basis of, I suppose, allowing a more mature consideration, and with the Treasury Bench seeking the opportunity to take with it all the disparate opinions within the House, making it clear that nothing is being done that thwarts the will of the House to discuss a matter of such significance as the one under consideration today. Would it not therefore be appropriate for the Treasury Bench to take the opportunity of having more mature consideration and to withdraw this motion, proposing instead one that would meet the aspirations of those who either support or oppose—

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I cannot give way.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Menzies Campbell: I am not an expert on procedure, Mr Speaker, but I understand what is happening here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen intently to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope I have not misunderstood him, but he certainly is able to give way if he wishes to do so, although he is not obliged to do so.

Menzies Campbell: We learn something new every day, Mr Speaker.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He can have his way: all he needs to do is to encourage his fellow Liberal Members to vote against the business motion. If it is defeated, the Government will have to go away, think again and present something sensible so that we can all debate what we want to debate. He should get the Liberals to vote against the business motion.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mr Speaker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will take the point of order from the Secretary of State for Justice.

Chris Grayling: It might help the House to know that, as I explained in my remarks, tonight’s motion extends the normal 90-minute debate to one that lasts all evening. Should it be defeated, there would simply be a 90-minute debate.

Menzies Campbell: That, Mr Speaker, is also my understanding. It is equally my understanding that there is considerable unrest in the House about this matter. Surely in those circumstances, the best thing for the Government to do is to go away and think about how best to allow us to express its view on these matters. Otherwise, we will have a bad-tempered, fractious and inconclusive debate. How can that possibly be in the interests either of the House or indeed of the public?

Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke very wisely. He is absolutely right to say that the way we do our business in this House is just as important as the business we transact. That is why we have rules that govern our proceedings. For centuries we have believed in this country that we govern by consent, not by arbitrary decisions made solely by the Government. We govern by consent, not by proxy motions that are reinterpreted by the Government. That is why it is important that the way we do our business, especially on a matter that affects the imprisonment and extradition of British nationals and nationals of other countries coming back to this country—a matter of essential importance to people’s personal liberty—should be debated properly, openly and transparently on a proper motion that, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, should be amendable. The motion should not be advanced to the House by proxy or by some subsidiary means; it must be open and clear.
	The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister stated quite categorically in this Chamber, and elsewhere in letters, that they would ensure that there was a proper vote on the matter of the European arrest warrant. Mr Speaker, you have said today that this will not be a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet the Justice Secretary, who should know better, has told us that he will reinterpret the message as meaning that this is a vote on the European arrest warrant. I simply say to the Government that for the sake of legal certainty—so that lawyers will not be paid vast quantities of money to debate in extradition courts whether the law has changed and whether it applies—it is essential that they withdraw the motion, and that they should have tabled a proper motion in the first place.
	It is no good the Government coming here and saying, “The House may pass one thing, but we will interpret it to mean exactly the opposite.” The House agreed unanimously that the rules should be changed in relation to Magnitsky, and that anyone who had been involved in his murder or in the corruption that he had
	unveiled would not be allowed in this country. The Government agreed to that at the time, and have done nothing subsequently. The Government let the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill go through, and have done nothing since. We cannot have a Government who conclude, arbitrarily, “The House has decided one thing, but we choose to believe that it means exactly the opposite.”

John Redwood: Many of us thought that we would have an opportunity today to debate the very weighty question of whether this country should opt back into 35 important measures relating to criminal justice, and put it under European Court of Justice and European Union control. We looked forward to a debate and a vote on that high principle, which includes the important and contentious European arrest warrant, but also a number of other measures that constitute the building blocks for a system in which our criminal justice would be conducted primarily under the central control of the European Union rather than that of the United Kingdom.
	We welcome the Government’s wish to engage and to allow us a reasonable length of time in which to debate those matters, followed by a concluding vote at 10 pm, but you, Mr Speaker, have told us, very wisely and helpfully, that that is not what the business motion says, and, through you, I urge Ministers to consider amending it. As I understand the position, you would probably be sympathetic if they wished to do so. We could debate their regulations for 90 minutes, and during the remaining time, until 10 pm, we could debate the much wider issues of substance. We could discuss whether we wish to opt into all those measures and what we think of the European arrest warrant. Some believe it to be the biggest of all the measures, which is in itself debatable. I think that justice would then be seen to be done by the wider public.
	I hope, Mr Speaker, that I am not taking liberties by suggesting to Ministers, through you, that a simple amendment to the business motion might provide a way out of this dilemma, and enable the House properly to consider the wider constitutional issues.

Mr Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Let me simply say, for the convenience and awareness of the House, that the Home Secretary will wind up the debate on the business motion in order to clarify the Government’s position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regards that as helpful. In the spirit of fairness and propriety, the Opposition Front Bench will also have a wind-up speaker, who I believe will be the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

David Hanson: It looks like it, Mr Speaker.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for the suggestion that you have just made. Would it not be even more convenient to the House if the Home Secretary did that now? We could then curtail this debate, and get on with it.

Mr Speaker: That is very cheeky indeed. Other Members might wish to speak in the debate. It is not only Front Benchers who have a right to speak. Other Members might wish to express themselves as well. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was, as always, trying to be helpful, but let us hear from a couple of other Members.

Martin Horwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am one of those who were waiting to speak, but I would happily forgo my place in the queue if the Home Secretary could be allowed to tell the House in a little more detail whether we are voting on the European arrest warrant or not.

Mr Speaker: That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that it will be taken by the House in that spirit, but Members must have their head. If they wish to demonstrate generosity similar to that of the hon. Gentleman, they can, and if they do not, they will not.

David Winnick: There are many differences over the European arrest warrant, as there are bound to be. They are legitimate differences, and it is important for us to debate the subject and vote accordingly. I believe that there is a unanimous view that there should be a debate on the actual issue of the European arrest warrant. When I received the Whip, like other Members, I was utterly surprised by Monday’s business, in which there was not one mention of a debate on the European arrest warrant. Ministers clearly consider that they were clever, and that they would contain and minimise a vote against what is being proposed. I can understand that, and it is not unique to this Government, but what is unfortunate, and what is a form of deception, is to bring a motion before the House for debate which is basically about the European arrest warrant but to avoid those three words.
	I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that if we are confused and if we do not like it, what about people outside? There are people who pay close attention to what we are doing, who are interested in the work of Parliament, and who believed that today we were going to debate the European arrest warrant; and they will see the exchanges that have occurred, and which have lasted over an hour, about whether or not the actual issue was to be debated today in the House of Commons. I therefore put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the way to resolve this issue is for the Treasury Bench to make it clear that there should be a debate today on an appropriate manuscript motion on the issue of the European arrest warrant.
	Let us decide one way or the other whether we are in favour of it, instead of all this muddying the water—this desire to deceive, this desire to give the opposite impression —so that at the end of the day when the vote occurs the Government can say that there has been hardly any opposition from their own side. That is not the way to proceed. It is a way that only brings the reputation of this House into disrepute, which is all the more reason why we should proceed in a different way from that which the Government have suggested.

Richard Shepherd: If I remember correctly, Maine’s “Ancient law” makes the observation that justice lies in the interstices of procedure. That rubric has survived through our history since it was set and there is a truth in it. Today we are confronted with a motion that is incomprehensible, and with an understanding that seems sly and that is actually a means of trying to incline the public to believe other than what is so.
	At the heart of this is a misconception about what this House represents. We must be straight with ourselves if we continue to allow the Executive to control—so completely and absolutely now—the Standing Orders of this House. This can be no joy for Labour, because Labour also started a Modernisation Committee that was determined to take over the Standing Orders. My overlong time in this House of Commons has led me to understand that the growth of Executive arrogance is unsupportable. We say that we are disconnected from the public outside and the issues outside, and that is because we are meaningless when we are confronted in the House with no motion and no real ability to discuss the very issue that moves many people in this country. What is the purpose of this House if the Administration—and a Conservative Administration at that, whose members had to suffer all the years of a huge new Labour majority—have not learned something, namely. that there has to be tolerance in this House and there has to be an ability to debate in this House?
	This is what so angers one. This is what brings this Chamber into disrepute. We are not able to discuss the substance of what we stand for here, and that is wrong. I therefore think we should be talking out this motion until the end of time, until the Government come back with a proper motion before this House.

Kevin Barron: In my 31 years in this Chamber I have never seen the nonsense we have got this afternoon ever happen under any Government. If it is without precedent, Mr Speaker, could we perhaps retire for half an hour or so, so the Government can put down a motion that is intelligible and that they could understand as well, so we can make a decision in a meaningful and proper way?

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government Whips and those on the Treasury Bench have concocted some sort of conclusion to this utter shambles. May we not hear, right now, from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary or the Chief Whip? Let us get this over and done with. For goodness’ sake, there are people watching this who will be appalled at what is going on in the House. Put an end to it now!

Mr Speaker: I understand what people are saying, but procedure does allow other colleagues to speak and I do not want to deprive them of that opportunity if they still wish to contribute.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This really is a sorry day for the Government. The motion to allocate time was tabled on the basis either of error or
	of falsehood. The Whip went round to Conservative Members of Parliament and said that today’s motion would be on regulations including those on the European arrest warrant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons. He has a brain the size of a planet. He is of the highest quality and the most honourable gentleman one could find. I cannot believe that he would make a basic error of this kind.
	We have Whips scuttling around the House saying that a vote will be taken tonight that will be indicative of what the House of Commons thinks about the European arrest warrant. That is a procedural absurdity. It is legislative legerdemain. The Government cannot conceivably decide that one vote is indicative of another. What might they decide next? Perhaps that a vote to cut taxes would indicate that we wanted to increase them, or that a vote in favour of longer prison sentences would indicate that we wanted to cut them? This is the way of tyranny, because it takes away the right of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account.

Kenneth Clarke: We have heard a wide range political views, but I think that everyone here today is unanimous in believing that we came here expecting to vote on a decision to opt in to 35 measures and that that vote would affect that decision one way or the other. Before we all get too worked up and decide that this is the biggest threat to parliamentary democracy since the gunpowder plot, may I suggest that we allow the Home Secretary to explain how the Government are going to give us the debate and the vote that we all want, even though my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I do not always see eye to eye and might not vote in the same way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a point that is, as always, worth listening to, but he is in error. This matter needs to be debated thoroughly, because it is my contention that this is not accidental. A letter was sent to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), saying that we would have a vote. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury said to this House that there would be a vote. The Lord High Chancellor and the Home Secretary sent a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee promising us that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant and all the other opt-ins and opt-outs. Now that we come to it, however, it is proposed that there will be a vote, after extra debating time, on a number of relatively obscure measures that require statutory instruments, and that that will be intended to determine the view of the House. That is not proper parliamentary procedure; it is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure.
	I often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—and with others, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—on European matters, but this debate today is of a degree worse than our disagreements. Our disagreements are polite and they reflect our fiercely held views, which we discuss in an upright and, I hope, proper fashion. This approach and this motion are fundamentally underhand. That is why there is such anger, not only on the Conservative Benches and among Eurosceptics. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for
	Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is shocked by this, as are the Scottish nationalists, who think that this is a poor way of behaving.

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware of the irony that as we approach the 800th anniversary celebration of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the rights we have taken from those previous generations should be at the heart of this debate but they are not going to be debated today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend; we should be having the time to debate the issues that really matter, not obscurities.

Martin Horwood: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the Liberal Democrats out of his list. Those of us who support the European arrest warrant would really value the opportunity to argue in favour of it and to vote in favour of it; we want to get the hashtag “Toriessoftoncrime” trending on Twitter and we want to have a real debate. We want that opportunity as well. I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but on this one I do.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because I hope it brings home to those on the Treasury Bench the deep discontent. I was saying earlier how deeply grateful I am to you, Mr Speaker, that you are protecting the rights of the legislature against the Executive by clarifying the terms of this debate. As I look down from here at the Treasury Bench, I want to see something that is solid, but I am worried that it is made of increasingly crooked wood. We want to have it re-solidified and we want this motion withdrawn.

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said on a couple of occasions, in response to Members of this House, that you will not call the Home Secretary until later on because others wish to speak. Is there anything to prevent her from speaking before the end of the debate?

Mr Speaker: It would be normal for the Home Secretary to speak either at the beginning or at the end of the debate. A most courteous approach was made to me on her behalf suggesting that it might be helpful to the House if she were to wind up the debate, and I agreed to that request. It is not that I am seeking to delay the Home Secretary for one moment; it is that there is provision for others to speak. When they have finished doing so, the Home Secretary can and will speak, and we will look forward to that. I think it would be a bit odd if I suddenly interrupted the flow of the debate now, when other Members are seeking to contribute, but I will take one further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman.

David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I quite accept that it is not normal procedure, but at the moment we are debating something we know not what. We do not know whether the Government are going to change the motion or stay with this motion. My stance on this matter is entirely different depending on which of those two outcomes it is. Therefore, it might be useful for the House to know rather earlier than usual.

Mr Speaker: I can see the force of that proposition. If other Members are prepared to exercise a self-denying ordinance and to hear from the Home Secretary, they can do so. It would be normal to allow the shadow Minister, who, in any case, wants to speak if at all only very briefly, to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to contribute? [Interruption.] He appears to be exercising a self-denying ordinance and I have a sense that colleagues would like to hear from the Home Secretary in winding up the debate. [Interruption.] In that case, I call Mr David Hanson.

David Hanson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to focus the Home Secretary’s mind, if I may. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he says that every Member came here tonight expecting to be debating 35 measures; Members in all parts of this House believed that to be the case over the weekend. I also find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he says that this business is being done in an underhand way, because all Members of this House expected to come here this evening to debate this matter and the issue of the European arrest warrant.
	Strangely, I also find myself in agreement with the Home Secretary, in that I am led to believe that she wants to debate and vote on the European arrest warrant. Let me let you into a secret, Mr Speaker: so do we. We would like to vote on the European arrest warrant and to give the Home Secretary our support, and I believe the Liberal Democrats would like to support her, too. We happen to take a view that murderers, child pornographers, bank robbers and fraudsters should be brought to justice in this House—[Laughter.] And perhaps elsewhere.
	I disagree strongly with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and, I suspect, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). They do not want to sign up to the European arrest warrant for reasons that we need to debate. I thought that today was about that debate. Over the weekend, I was expecting to have that debate today, as I am sure did all Members of this House. It now appears that that is not going to happen. Let me offer the Home Secretary a way out.

John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman might wish to correct the record. I can assure him that we, like him, wish nasty people to be locked up after proper prosecution. The argument is over who has the ultimate control over our criminal justice system to do so.

David Hanson: Well, let us have that argument. First, let me offer the Home Secretary a way out. For the purposes of today’s debate, we will vote against the programme motion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said. I invite those Members who are dissatisfied with today’s proceedings and—dare I say it—the Liberal Democrats who do not hold Government positions, to join us in that.

David Heath: rose—

David Hanson: I will give way in a moment.
	If we do that and the programme motion is defeated, we will, as the Lord Chancellor has said, be in a position to debate this motion for one and a half hours this evening. That is probably sufficient to debate the 11 measures that are down before the House today. Let us defeat that programme motion, and use the 90 minutes on the 11 measures. Let the Home Secretary go away from this House, listen to what people have said from all parts of the House, bring back a formal motion to debate the other measures, including the European arrest warrant, and let people, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham who takes a different view from me—[Interruption.]

Graham Brady: indicated assent.

David Hanson: I see the Chairman of the 1922 Committee nodding his head. Let those Members have that debate. Let them exercise their vote and let this House express its will before 1 December on what we should do. This is a problem of the Home Secretary’s own making. She needs to sort it out, and sort it out now.

Theresa May: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the business motion.
	The Lisbon treaty, which was negotiated by the previous Labour Government and which included within it the opportunity for the United Kingdom to opt out of around 130 justice and home affairs measures and then to decide whether to opt back in to a number of measures, did not require any vote to be brought before this House of Commons to undertake those decisions. This Government believe that that was wrong, which is why we have brought a number of debates before this House on these matters. There is also no legislative requirement for us to bring before the House this package of 35 justice and home affairs measures.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Theresa May: No, I will not give way. Members have been calling for me to stand up and speak, and that is exactly what I am doing.
	There is no legislative requirement for us to bring this package of 35 measures to this House for Members to consider and vote on. There is a legislative requirement for us to transpose certain measures into UK legislation. The normal way of doing that is upstairs in a Standing Committee, on a one-and-a-half hour debate on a negative statutory instrument, after 1 December and after the decision by this Government to opt in to a certain number of measures had been taken.

William Cash: rose—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Theresa May: No, I say to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Lady that I have been asked to explain the Government’s position, and that is what I intend to do.

Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House agreed that the Home Secretary should speak so that she would right something that we all knew was wrong. This is simply a scoundrel’s defence. This is wrong.

Mr Speaker: No, no, no. The Home Secretary is entitled to say—and she will say—what she thinks, and the House must hear that.

Theresa May: I have made it clear that there was no requirement under the Lisbon treaty or any legislative requirement to bring the package of 35 measures to this House.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary seems to think that the House should be grateful for what we have got, but she and the Prime Minister promised that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant. Will she now admit that, with the motion she has put before the House today, she has broken that promise?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Lady will just let me continue, I will explain further to the House. As I have said, there is no requirement to bring any vote to the House. There is a requirement to transpose into UK legislation certain of the 35 measures that we will opt back into. That would normally have been done through the negative statutory instrument procedure in an hour-and-a-half debate upstairs in a Committee, not on the Floor of the House. That would normally have been done after 1 December, so after the date on which the Government had chosen to opt back in, and indeed after we had exercised our opt-in. We did not think that that was right either, which is why we have brought before the House an affirmative measure on a statutory instrument that shows the House the legislative requirements that will need to be made.
	However, I have been very clear, the Government have been very clear, and indeed you, Mr Speaker, have been very clear—I am grateful for the clarification in your statement—that the debate we will be having on the motion on the regulations will be wide-ranging and, indeed, will include a debate on the European arrest warrant. I say to Members of the House that it is my intention to speak about the European arrest warrant when that debate takes place. I also say to right hon. and hon. Members that if they vote against this—[Interruption.]

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Home Secretary was listening earlier when you said that the European arrest warrant can only be mentioned peripherally in the main debate, because she has just said that she intends to speak about it. It might be helpful if you reiterated your earlier advice, in case she had not been listening.

Mr Speaker: I think that I referred to the requirement for Members to deploy some ingenuity, and I gave quite a full explanation of the situation as I saw it. I do not recall using the word “peripherally”—I hesitate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, who is always very precise in his use of words—but I think that the substance of what I was getting at was clear. Let us now hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am clear that it is possible in the debate on the regulations to discuss those measures that are not listed in the regulations, and that is certainly what I and other Members intend to do. The Government are very clear that what we are debating in the next debate is the regulations that transpose into legislation those measures that need to be transposed.

Tom Harris: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: No.
	The European arrest warrant is not on that list because it does not need to be transposed into legislation, because that has already been done. However, the Government are clear that the vote that will take place on the regulations will be the vote that determines whether or not we opt into these measures. [Interruption.]

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are talking about the liberties of the subject, this is a very important matter. You have absolutely said in terms that the vote tonight is not about the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary seems to be intimating that we are indeed making an indicative vote tonight on the European arrest warrant. The House of Commons, in a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, needs to know what it is voting on, and we need advice from you and the Home Secretary.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point or order. What Members think is indicative is a matter for them. Indeed, if a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government chooses to argue that something is indicative, that is a matter for that Minister. As a matter of fact, I was simply trying to be clear with the House, as I think was the Home Secretary in her previous paragraph, to be fair, that tonight’s vote—I have been asked regularly what the vote is about—is on the regulations. The vote is not—I repeat, not—on the European arrest warrant.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, I was attempting to be as clear as you have been that the vote on the next motion will be a vote on the regulations, which includes those measures in the package of 35 that we wish to opt back into which require to be transposed into UK legislation. But the Government are clear that we will be bound by that vote, and if this House chooses not to transpose those measures and votes against the regulations, it will be voting against the Government opting into all the measures, including the European arrest warrant.
	My final point is this: we have the option now of a vote on the business motion. The decision for Members of the House is whether to vote against that business motion and have one and a half hours for debate on all these matters, or to vote in favour of the business motion and have four and a half hours for debate. I trust they will take the latter option.

Yvette Cooper: Mr Speaker, you pointed out how unusual it was for the Government also to reply to debates on a business motion, but is it not normal in a reply to respond to the points that have been made in the debate? In the debate it was clear that the Home
	Secretary promised a debate on the European arrest warrant and promised a vote on it, and she has not given it. Do you agree that that is not a reply to a business motion debate?

Mr Speaker: I think I have set out the position clearly and there is nothing at this stage for me to add, but Members will form their own view. That is the fairest thing I can say—Members will form their own view.
	I think I am right in saying that the Home Secretary has concluded her speech.

Theresa May: Indeed, Mr Speaker.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 251, Noes 242.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Criminal Law

[Relevant documents: Nineteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committeeon 5 November 2014, HC 219-xviii; Seventeenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, The UK’s block opt-out decision: summaryand update Report, HC 762; Twenty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2013-14, The UK’s block opt-out ofpre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures, HC 683, and the Government Response, HC 978; Ninth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2013-14, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police andcriminal justice measures: the UK’s opt-in decision, HC 615, and the Government Response, HC 954; Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2013-14, Ministry of Justice measures in the JHAblock opt-out, HC 605, and the Government Response, HC 972; First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, Session 2013-14,The Government’s response to the Committee’s Reports on the 2014 block opt-out decision, HC 1177.]

Theresa May: I beg to move,
	That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.
	Protocol 36 is the part of the Lisbon treaty that relates to the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the policing and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the treaty came into force. The opt-out provisions are unique to the United Kingdom, and were negotiated by the previous Administration. Under the terms of protocol 36, the UK had to decide before the end of May 2014 whether it wished to opt out of all the police and criminal justice measures—some 130 in all—that predate the Lisbon treaty. The opt-out had to be exercised en masse; we could not simply leave the measures that we did not like.

Kate Hoey: I want the Home Secretary to be very clear, and give a yes or no answer. Will the House get the chance in the next couple of weeks to vote on the European arrest warrant?

Theresa May: The House is getting a chance today to debate the European arrest warrant. The House has been clear that it wished to have such a debate. We were very clear during the debate on the business motion that regulations are before the House, and the House will vote on those regulations. I have also been very clear about the Government’s position. We have brought those particular regulations before the House because they are the only ones that we need to transpose into UK legislation. I will come on to comment on the European arrest warrant. As I said earlier, I am very clear that the vote today relates to whether or not the UK opts back in to the package of measures that we have negotiated. The package comes together; it is not an a la carte menu from which one can pick and choose.

Yvette Cooper: Is the Home Secretary telling the House that she disagrees with the ruling made by the Speaker—yes or no?

Theresa May: No. I can tell the right hon. Lady that I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and disagree with the Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker’s rulings are about what happens in this Chamber and what votes are on. In fact, the words I have just said agree with the Speaker’s ruling—that the vote will be on the regulations on the Order Paper. We have tabled the motion because we believe it right that the House, in debating and considering the package of measures that we want to opt back in to, sees very clearly what legislation is necessary to transpose certain measures.

Edward Leigh: But the Speaker has said in terms that we are not voting on the European arrest warrant. Is the Home Secretary now arguing that by voting for the regulations tonight we are joining the European arrest warrant?

Theresa May: I have been very clear that the formal vote before the House is on the regulations. I have also been clear that the Government—I will come on to explain our timetable, which has some relevance to this matter—want to opt back in to measures that are in a package. If the House votes against transposing some of those measures into UK legislation, it is effectively voting against our package of measures. On that basis, we can speak about all the measures within the package of 35 measures.

Pete Wishart: Why did the Home Secretary not just include the European arrest warrant in tonight’s motion?

Theresa May: I have explained that the statutory instrument transposes those measures that require legislation. I repeat—I am happy to speak about this again later—that we are not required to transpose the European arrest warrant into UK legislation because it is already in UK legislation, in the Extradition Act 2003.
	We had an opportunity to exercise the opt-out, and we did so. We have brought back more than 100 powers from Brussels.

Kevan Jones: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I will make some progress, because the time for the debate is now more limited and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
	As the Prime Minister says, we have overseen the biggest return of powers since this country joined the EU, but we have always been clear that we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures that give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help in the fight against crime. This Government and this party will never put politics before the protection of the British public and that is why we are seeking to remain part of a package of 35 measures that help us to tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.

Geraint Davies: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the event the House votes down these 11 measures, she will still be free to opt in to the European arrest warrant and, what is more, she will still be free to move forward with those 11 measures through other parliamentary means? That is the case, is it not?

Theresa May: We have been very clear that we have brought before the House tonight those measures that are required to be transposed into UK legislation. We have also been clear that in the Government’s view, a vote against those regulations is a vote against the package of 35 measures. I have been very clear that the 35 measures hang together. Even though only a small number require transposing into legislation, they are a package of measures and not a pick and mix.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I am going to make some progress.
	The package is the product of careful deliberation in this House and beyond. It follows consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our security and intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations and the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the Government of Gibraltar, victims’ groups and many more. It has been scrutinised by Committees in both Houses of Parliament and the Justice Secretary, and I, along with other Ministers, have appeared before those Committees to give evidence on the Government’s approach. We have also published two Command Papers on the issue.

Julian Huppert: I am pleased that we will, I hope, opt in to a range of these measures. As the Home Secretary says, this has taken a huge amount of time, effort and negotiations with Europe. How much benefit is there, given that most of the measures to which we are not opting in have expired?

Theresa May: There is considerable benefit, and I point my hon. Friend towards the measures on minimum standards for the justice system—there are about 20, I think. It is not the view of the Government, and it is certainly not the view of the Conservative party, that we should be part of the European justice system that some people think some of Europe wishes to introduce. Coming out of the minimum standards measures was an important part of ensuring that we did not go in that direction.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend mentioned the scrutiny process, but, as she well knows, all three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Justice—have said that there has not been proper consultation with Parliament on these matters. What has happened today amply demonstrates our concerns and nothing has emerged to change our view. Will my right hon. Friend explain how on earth all this has happened?

Theresa May: I am aware of the views expressed to this House by my hon. Friend and by the Chairmen of the Justice and the Home Affairs Committees. I remind my hon. Friend that I, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers have appeared in front of the Select Committees of this House, of the European Scrutiny Committee and of Committees of the House of Lords on a number of occasions on the subject of these measures. We have also held a number of debates on the Floor of the House and varying views have been expressed from both sides of the House about the measures that have been proposed.

Sammy Wilson: Given that the Home Secretary wrote yesterday in The Sunday Times that the European arrest warrant and 34 other measures were in the package proposed by the Government, and given that she knew that the European arrest warrant was one of the most controversial of those measures, will she explain why she has included those issues in the regulations that we are discussing today but left out the European arrest warrant?

Theresa May: It has been made clear that it is possible to discuss the other measures in our debate today, and I have explained why the regulations include only certain measures—those required to be transposed into UK legislation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to refer to the package of 35 measures being the product of tough negotiations in Europe. In July, when we last gave Government time for a debate on the issue, I informed the House that good progress had been made in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states and that we were close to reaching an in-principle agreement. The matter had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June, but some member states had expressed technical reservations. I published Command Paper 8897, which included the full list of measures discussed at the General Affairs Council and impact assessments of each of those measures. I had hoped to be able to return the matter to Parliament for consideration before the summer recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant it was not possible to do so. In September, two of those member states lifted their reserves and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on Friday Spain, the one remaining member state blocking the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels.
	I believe that the deal we have negotiated in Europe and that we are bringing before the House today is a good one for the United Kingdom. It includes important tools such as SIS II, the second-generation Schengen information system, which the United Kingdom is scheduled to join shortly. That will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.
	The package of measures we have negotiated includes Europol, which does excellent work under its British director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. Three weeks ago, for example, Europol played a key role in Operation Trivium, a UK-wide operation led by West Midlands police that saw police forces from 14 European countries jointly targeting foreign criminals in the UK. Senior officers from across Europe came together at the control centre in Edgbaston to witness the operation in action and Europol provided a mobile unit to co-ordinate activities on the ground. In the first 48 hours of the operation, more than 700 suspected criminals were arrested and a further 950 were handed on-the-spot fines for minor offences, cautioned or summonsed to court. They included a 51-year-old Polish man arrested on suspicion of involvement in a fraud of more than £11,000.
	Europol also played a key part in tackling the horsemeat scandal that so appalled this House and the British public last year, as did Eurojust, another of the measures in our package.

Philip Davies: The Home Secretary keeps talking about a package of measures, but, of course, this is not a package of measures but things that she has bundled up into a package. As she appears to be making up parliamentary procedure as she goes along, will she explain how on earth those people who agree with some of the measures but not others should vote this evening?

Theresa May: I described them as a package because that was what was open to us under the terms of the Lisbon treaty negotiated by the previous Labour Government. We have to opt back in to a group of measures. There are measures in the package that interrelate. For example, the European supervision order relates to the European arrest warrant. We cannot simply pick and choose individual measures; many of them interrelate and should be considered together.

Lady Hermon: The Home Secretary made but a fleeting reference to consultation with the devolved institutions, but since Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, will she take the opportunity to put on the record that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, and the Assembly support the measures before us this evening?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The Justice Minister in Northern Ireland supports the measures, as does the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland, Frances Fitzgerald, who has made very clear the consequences if the House rejects the measures and if the Government do not opt in to them.

John Redwood: The Home Secretary may recall that she and I stood on the same Conservative manifesto, which said very clearly that a Conservative Government would reassert the “ultimate authority” of the House of Commons over important matters and repatriate powers in criminal justice. Does she not see the danger that if we opt back in to 35 measures, without having any legislation to assert our primacy, our criminal justice system can be entirely controlled from Brussels?

Theresa May: I will refer later to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and what that means in relation to the measures before us. This is a simple decision about whether we want to be part of practical law and order measures that make a difference to the ability of our law enforcement agencies to catch criminals.
	The support and co-ordination provided by Eurojust were invaluable to the UK’s law enforcement agencies and prosecutors during the fraud investigation that followed the revelation of the horsemeat scandal. Eurojust was extremely proactive and offered immediate assistance to the prosecutors in our Crown Prosecution Service, and provided vital information on investigations that were being carried out right across Europe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I will make a little progress before I take more interventions.
	The assistance of Eurojust has proved instrumental in the prosecution of animal rights extremists in the UK. Through its facilitation of meetings between the
	relevant European jurisdictions, evidence was obtained of the existence of an international conspiracy to blackmail the suppliers and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences which was used in the UK trial.

James Arbuthnot: I ought to declare an interest because my wife is a judge who deals with European arrest warrants on a regular basis. The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense. Please will my right hon. Friend stick to her guns, because I do not want this country to become a haven for foreign criminals?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him that I will refer to a number of measures that will ensure that there is judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant and proper consideration of such cases in the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right about another thing. The Government have negotiated this package and are bringing it to the House because we believe that these measures are necessary to ensure that we can continue the job of keeping people safe and bringing criminals to justice.
	I will outline some of the other vital measures in the package of 35 measures. However, I said earlier that I would say a little about the timing of today’s debate, which I think is relevant to the consideration that Members have given to the motion. Now that the final reservation has been lifted on our deal, which, as I said, happened on Friday, we must allow for discussion at a Council in Brussels before the month is out. Very few appropriate options remain. We must add items to the agenda of a Council 16 days in advance to guarantee their inclusion. That means that we do not have long to complete our domestic processes. To avoid an operational gap for our police and law enforcement agencies, we must complete the entire process before 1 December. That involves formally notifying Brussels about the measures that we wish to remain part of.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way? It is important.

Theresa May: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for just one moment. He will know that I am usually very generous in giving way to him during debates on European matters, even though I sometimes disagree with the points that he makes. However, the point that I am about to make is important too.
	If we do not complete the entire process before 1 December, including notifying Brussels of the measures that we wish to remain part of, we will have an operational gap, which I believe would be a real problem for our police and law enforcement agencies. We must be ready to transpose those measures fully into our domestic law. That is why it is important that we hold votes in this House and the other place, and complete the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible—hence the motion before us.

William Cash: In the light of what has happened so far and the fact that we do not have the opportunity to vote on the European arrest warrant, as Mr Speaker has indicated, will the Home Secretary confirm that we will have an opportunity to do so, as was promised not
	only by her, but by the Prime Minister? We have not had such a vote. Will she guarantee that we will have one after a proper debate on the matter?

Theresa May: I have set out quite clearly the Government’s view on the motion before the House and the debate that we are having. I will attempt to make progress, because I want to get on to some of the other issues, including the European arrest warrant. I recognise the degree of interest in that and the concern that remains among some hon. Members. That is why I wish to have time to speak about that particular measure.

Steve Rotheram: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I will give way once more and then I will make progress.

Steve Rotheram: Following on from what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, when the Prime Minister was offered parliamentary time to debate the European arrest warrant by the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
	“There is only one problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s …question: we are going to have a vote, we going to have it before the Rochester by-election—his questions have just collapsed.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
	What has changed, Home Secretary?

Theresa May: We are having a vote on the regulations tonight and it has been made very clear that people are able to discuss the European arrest warrant in the debate.
	If we were to vote against the motion tonight and did not opt back in to the measures—because a vote against the motion tonight would be a vote against the package of 35 measures—we would find ourselves kicked out of Europol within weeks and our extradition arrangements would be thrown into legal uncertainty, potentially for years. That would risk harmful individuals walking free and escaping justice, and would seriously harm the capability of our law enforcement agencies to keep the public safe.

Dominic Raab: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I will make a little more progress and will then give way to my hon. Friend.
	For the reasons I have just given, the Government have always been clear that it is in our national interest to remain part of these vital measures and to do so without an operational gap.
	Over the past four years, and particularly since we announced our intention to exercise the opt-out in July 2013, a number of hon. Members have proposed alternative courses of action to me and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary as we have undertaken our negotiations in Europe. A number of hon. Members are interested in the position of Denmark with regard to justice and home affairs matters. Some have said that it provides a potential model for the UK to follow. I believe that it is a false comparison. Denmark has a separate protocol to the Lisbon treaty that excludes it from participating in post-Lisbon justice and home
	affairs measures. It has concluded third-country agreements with the EU because it has no other way to participate in those measures.
	By contrast, protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty sets out the process by which the UK can opt out of and rejoin justice and home affairs measures. There is no precedent for an international agreement between the EU and a member state that already has the ability to participate in EU measures by specific means. The European Commission argues that protocol 36 provides adequate provision and renders a third-country agreement unnecessary. Riding roughshod over that would involve walking away from a very good deal for the UK and risk damaging our support for future negotiations in Europe. Even if we could persuade the European Union, it would take years to thrash out, guaranteeing a lengthy operational gap in the fight against crime and a risk to the British public that would be unacceptable.
	Finally, I hope hon. Members will heed the Danish example in full. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the European Union has required Denmark to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In effect, the Danish agreements that have caught the attention of some hon. Members simply bind Denmark to EU law by another legal means. I suspect that is not what those hon. Members had in mind.
	I have explained that only a certain number of the measures require transposition through the regulations before the House. The regulations make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. That allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend months and months abroad awaiting trial. It will therefore stand alongside the reforms that we have made to the arrest warrant, making it easier for people like Andrew Symeou, whose case has been championed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), to be bailed back to the UK and preventing such injustices from occurring in future. The connection between the supervision order and the arrest warrant, one of which is being transposed in the regulations and one of which is not, is an example of the inter-connectedness of the package of measures.

Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.
	I mean this question completely sincerely. One reason why I passionately support the British courts and jury system is that one never knows when one might get into trouble or be wrongly accused oneself. I realise that it is extremely unlikely, and it is a personal question, but if she were wrongly accused of something in, say, Croatia, would she rather rely on British justice and traditional extradition procedures or on the say-so of a prosecutor in Croatia?

Theresa May: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come on to explain how we have changed the European arrest warrant so that British judges are now interposed in the system in a way that they were not always in the past. Those measures have been an important advantage, and some arrest warrant requests to the UK have already been rejected as a result.
	I do not want to lose sight of some of the other measures in the package. For example, the regulations also cover the European criminal records information
	system. We are already taking steps to identify foreign nationals who are abusing our openness and hospitality by committing crimes in this country. Operation Nexus, a groundbreaking initiative taken by the Metropolitan police and immigration enforcement, helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. As I said, it began with the Metropolitan police, but it has recently been extended to the West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester forces and six other forces including Police Scotland, and we wish to extend its work to every force in England and Wales. ECRIS is a key tool that supports that operation and thereby helps to keep our streets safe.
	As people find it easier to move around the globe, we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can exchange information more readily too. In 2006, the UK made and received no requests at all for criminal records from other EU member states. In 2012-13 we made over 25,000 requests, and last year that figure was 41,500. I recently announced that the Government would increase the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals by introducing full checks on foreign nationals arrested in the Metropolitan police area. Given that 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. That is also why our package of 35 measures also includes the Swedish initiative, which simplifies the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure, which protects personal data transferred in the fight against crime. Those measures both require transposition, and they are covered in the regulations.
	Another of the measures in the regulations provides for joint investigation teams between our police and their European counterparts. It allows our police to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking into the UK of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland; and Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, mostly in the UK and Spain.

Julian Huppert: The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. She has made a strong argument for cross-border co-operation with our European partners, but one measure that she is not opting into is the internal security fund, which involves about £3 billion for measures across Europe to tackle cross-border crime. We are one of only two countries that have not opted into that; will she consider doing so, so that we can continue to work across borders?

Theresa May: We were clear about the package of measures that we wished to opt into—the 35 that we identified. We looked at all the 130-odd measures that were subject to protocol 36, and we believe that the package that the Government have published for Members is the right one to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need.
	Another measure in the package is the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps to remove foreign criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars
	Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, firearms and drug offences and assault. In April 2012, he was sentenced to thirteen and a half years’ imprisonment in the UK, and in June this year he was transferred out of this country to a prison in Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. Had it not been for the prisoner transfer measure, he would have remained in a British prison at a cost to the British taxpayer of more than £100,000.
	As I indicated earlier, I have taken part in a number of debates on these issues. From those debates, and from the debate that we had earlier and the comments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, it is absolutely clear that the measure that attracts the most interest from Members is the European arrest warrant.
	Extradition is always an emotive subject. It raises important questions about the civil liberties of British citizens, the quality of justice in other countries, the role of our own courts and how we bring criminals to justice, and I understand those concerns. I remind hon. Members that I am the Home Secretary who blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States, and who reformed our extradition arrangements so that, when prosecution is possible in both this country and another, British courts can block extradition overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so. I therefore share many of the concerns that have been raised about the European arrest warrant in the past. Indeed, as a member of the shadow Cabinet I voted against its transposition into British law by the last Labour Government. That is why, as Home Secretary, I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to British people and others who are wanted for extradition.
	The changes that we made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant that sits in our package of 35 measures is a better and safer arrest warrant than the one operated over the past decade. Under the last Government, British citizens could be extradited for disproportionately minor offences, so the law has been changed to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge must now consider whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and a British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking a second intervention from me.
	The Home Secretary knows well that a Mr John Downey walked free from the Old Bailey earlier this year. He had been charged in connection with the Hyde park bombing, which killed four innocent British soldiers, and was also sought in connection with the Enniskillen bombing and the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment men in Northern Ireland. He walked free because the Northern Ireland Office had signed off a letter in 2007—not during the current Administration—for a category of people known as the on-the-runs. Mr Downey is now enjoying the air of County Donegal. Would the UK opting into the European arrest warrant help the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland retrieve Mr Downey to face serious criminal charges if the Police Service of Northern Ireland had sufficient evidence?

Theresa May: I recognise the case that the hon. Lady raises and her concern about it. I do not think it would be right for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on an individual case, particularly one that involves certain other matters that are not only relevant to the measures that we are discussing. As she says, they relate to decisions taken some time ago about the issue of on-the-runs.

Michael Ellis: May I commend my right hon. Friend and ask her to stick to her guns on this matter? She is delineating the changes that she has caused to be made to the European arrest warrant. It is different from how it was before, and we can and must support it in the interests of justice, because it will prevent this country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and criminals. Furthermore, does she recall that Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, told the Committee that I sit on, the Home Affairs Committee, that he supported the European arrest warrant? He said that it was the best tool to accomplish what my right hon. Friend and the rest of the House want to achieve.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and as an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee he has looked at the matter in some detail. He is absolutely right that the Committee was clear about the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We have indeed made changes to it, thanks to which the National Crime Agency refuses requests before they even get to our courts in the case of the most trivial offences, freeing up police and court time for more serious matters.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in total contravention of what you ruled earlier?

Mr Speaker: I said in my statement that I intended to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we all agree, is sub-optimal.

Theresa May: Our reforms have also clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came into force in July. Under the old arrest warrant, people were being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. We have changed the law to require that a decision to charge, and a decision to try the person, has been made in the requesting country before they can be extradited.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her personal interest in the case of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and to the Minister. On this point, which is often known as the Symeou
	clause, does she have confidence—this is something that I and my constituent lack—that the decision to charge and try will necessarily follow with the same speed and alacrity as in this country and many other countries? We are totally reliant on those other countries to enforce such measures quickly, else people will languish in jail because there is a difference between the decision to charge and the different decision to try.

Theresa May: In our changes to the legislation we are clear that this is about the decision to charge and to try. As I mentioned earlier, my hon. Friend has been assiduous in championing the issue because of the case of his constituent Andrew Symeou and we all recognise that that sort of circumstance led many people to query the European arrest warrant and be concerned about its operation. The legislative changes we have made allow a British court to decide that unless there is a decision to charge and try an individual, it can reject the European arrest warrant. In addition, we have also made changes so that an individual can be transferred temporarily to give evidence and be returned to the United Kingdom, or to give evidence by video link, for example, so that they do not need physically to be taken to the other country concerned.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Nick de Bois: rose—

Theresa May: I note the importance of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, so I will give way to him again.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s attempt to explain that point, but perhaps I can ask her about another issue. The courts are not allowed to take into account the record of a country in its effectiveness at pursuing a case from charge to trial-ready. Would such a requirement on the courts provide more confidence that they can look beyond the initial application to extradite and hold to account countries that fail to deliver?

Theresa May: I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I believe that the changes we have made are sufficient to ensure that our courts are able to make judgments on charge and trial, and therefore a judgment on whether a European arrest warrant should be put into place. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)

Chris Bryant: I did not have to ask this time, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I fully agree with what she is saying about the European arrest warrant and with many of the changes that she has managed to introduce and negotiate with other countries. I agree with all that, but not with the process she is adopting. On 29 October, when asked about the European arrest warrant, why did the Prime Minister say not just once but four times:
	“I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on it…we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
	The Speaker has already said that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. So that all Members of the House can at least reckon that they have had a fair deal, will the Home Secretary please give us a proper vote next week?

Theresa May: And the hon. Gentleman started off so nicely—such a disappointment. As I have said, the National Crime Agency is refusing arrest warrants in certain circumstances, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), those require people to be able to be charged and stand trial. Some hon. Members were worried that arrest warrants were being used for investigatory purposes rather than prosecution, and, as I said, that is why we have allowed people to visit an issuing state temporarily to be questioned, or to do so via a video link without even leaving these shores.

Tony Baldry: These post-July changes are extremely welcome, but one point that has not yet been made is that 95% of European arrest warrants that are applied for from this country are for foreign nationals. It is foreign countries wanting their nationals back to prosecute them—these are foreign nationals, foreign criminals, who have come to the United Kingdom because they think that it can be a safe haven. The European arrest warrant is enabling the countries where the offences were committed to get their nationals back—95% of those warrants do not apply to UK citizens but to foreign citizens.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is prescient because it was a point to which I was coming soon in my speech, and it is an important statistic. Sometimes people think that the European arrest warrant is just used to extradite United Kingdom citizens from the United Kingdom, but that is not the case.
	Hon. Members have expressed concerns about people being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they consent to extradition, so we have lifted the requirement that individuals lose their right to “speciality protection” when they consent to extradition. Those changes have been made in UK law, and came into effect earlier this year. They are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.

Zac Goldsmith: The concept of proportionality is hard to define and therefore hard to understand. The Home Secretary has already given examples of cases that have been refused on the basis that they are too trivial. Can she give an example of the least serious offence where extradition has been possible since July?

Theresa May: I do not have a list of all the European arrest warrants that have been refused, but there are two steps to the proportionality decision. The first is an administrative decision taken by the National Crime Agency as the body that initially receives the request. Then there is the possibility for the courts to make a determination about proportionality, and they will consider a variety of issues. It is not a tick-box approach; the courts will make judgments not just about the nature of the crime but about the nature of the disposal available in the other member state in relation to that crime, so that they can decide whether the arrest warrant is appropriate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) indicated that the vast majority of people extradited from the UK—more than 95%—are foreign nationals. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults and seven
	terrorism cases. In the same period, the arrest warrant has been used to return 647 people to this country to face justice. The list includes 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs, and one suspected terrorist.

Menzies Campbell: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has come to the issue of the United Kingdom causing the extradition of others from abroad. Does she accept that the European arrest warrant brought an end to the rather hideous spectacle of well-known criminals living off their ill-gotten gains and sunning themselves on the Costa Brava?

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and there are many people, particularly from Spain, whom we are now able to extradite in a rather more efficient process than was the case previously, and they are exactly the sort of people to whom he refers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I say to right hon. and hon. Members that I am conscious of the time I have been speaking for. I have taken a number of interventions, but I wish to make progress because others wish to speak in this debate.
	Some opponents of the European arrest warrant say we should refuse to remain part of it and instead rely on the European Council convention on extradition of 1957. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) noted on the radio last week:
	“If we have to fall back temporarily on the old Council of Europe conventions, extraditions will be slower.”
	That view was echoed today by the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee, which stated that
	“there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions previously reached by the European Union Committee that ‘If the United Kingdom were to leave the EAW and rely upon alternative extradition arrangements, it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.’”

Dominic Raab: I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s elucidations. What I am seeking to understand is why we cannot opt out of all the measures, including the EAW, and negotiate a bespoke arrangement without the erosion of democratic control through the European Court of Justice and other means. I listened very carefully to what she said earlier—the Commission’s view that this was unprecedented—and I appreciate it would take time and a lot of diplomatic elbow grease, but can she confirm that there is no legal bar to that course of action and that it is a question of political will?

Theresa May: I recognise my hon. Friend’s point. It is one he has made to me on a number of occasions. I have addressed the two areas where people have sometimes said that alternative arrangements could be made. The first is that we would fall back on the Council of Europe convention of 1957. I have been absolutely clear in the remarks I have just made that there is one crucial aspect that would cause us problems: the length of time that extradition procedures would take. As the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee has just said, that could undermine public safety.
	There is another aspect in which that would be problematic were we to be negotiating with other member states. Without the arrest warrant there are 22 member states in the EU, including France, Germany and Spain, that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. In the past five years alone, more than 100 people from those countries have been returned to Britain to face justice, many for serious crimes including rape and murder. One of those was Andreas Ververopoulos, a Greek, who committed a violent and sickening sexual assault on a 16-year-old girl in Hampshire in 2007 and then fled home to Greece. In July 2013, Hampshire police linked him to the crime using DNA and an arrest warrant was used to return him to the UK. In April this year, he pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The judge in the case said it was
	“an appalling attack on a young and vulnerable girl”.
	After seven years of further suffering, the victim and the victim’s family finally saw justice done.

Yvette Cooper: I, too, have looked at that case. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an appalling example of a terrible crime. The European arrest warrant was rightly used in that case. Will she say why the EAW is not on the Order Paper?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady knows that I have answered that question previously.
	The right hon. Lady is right that the case I cited was a particularly difficult and awful case in terms of the crime that was committed. Without the arrest warrant, the individual who committed that crime would still be in Greece today. Before it came into force, Greece did not surrender its own nationals. Indeed, it entered a reservation to the 1957 convention specifically barring the extradition of Greek nationals, so the victims of brutal crimes, such as in this case, would go on suffering. We owe it to them to heed the old warning that justice delayed is justice denied.
	I want to come on to one final relevant point that was hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) earlier: the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This pass was sold when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) signed the Lisbon treaty. Our opt-out only applies to those policing and criminal justice measures that precede it. Since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, the UK has signed up to 90 new justice and home affairs measures, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. We face the same choice today: whether to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the small package of measures that we wish to remain part of from 1 December, so that our law enforcement agencies can continue to use those powers to fight crime and keep us safe; or reject those measures and accept the risk to public protection that that involves. That invidious choice is the result of a poor treaty, badly negotiated. In my mind, however, it is clear: this is a vote about law and order, not a vote about Europe.
	I am certainly no enthusiast for the European Court of Justice. The ECJ should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or our international relations. That is why, as I indicated earlier, 100 or so measures the Government have opted out of, and will not rejoin, include more than 20 minimum standards
	measures on sensitive matters such as racism and xenophobia. It is why we have opted out of, and will not rejoin, the EU-US extradition agreement. It is this place that should have the final say over our laws on these matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should be able to renegotiate such arrangements as they see fit.
	I understand the concerns raised about the European Court of Justice in the many debates we have had on protocol 36. I believe we must look again at this matter in our renegotiations with the European Union before the referendum that a Conservative Government will deliver by the end of 2017. In the meantime, however, we must act in the national interest to keep the British public safe. We have therefore exercised an opt-out, which it seems no one else would have exercised. We have brought back more than 100 justice and home affairs powers that had already been signed away. We have listened to those who work tirelessly to keep us safe on which of the tools at their disposal are vital to their important work. We have gone to Europe and negotiated a good deal for the United Kingdom. We have won support from the Commission and other member states to remain part of a smaller package of measures in the national interest. Now we must vote to transpose those measures that require transposing and, in doing so, vote to seal the deal.

Yvette Cooper: Today we have had a completely shambolic debate. The Home Secretary has given an excellent account of why we should support policies that are not on the Order Paper. She has given an excellent defence of the European arrest warrant, which is not on the Order Paper. I agree with her that the European arrest warrant is immensely important. It helps us to fight crime. It helps the police, in Britain and across Europe, to stop murderers, traffickers and sex offenders. It helps us to deport more than 1,000 suspected foreign criminals primarily to their own countries to face justice. Given that there is a majority in this House in favour of the European arrest warrant, why on earth are we not voting for it? Why the sophistry? Why the games? Why the dancing around? It is just baffling that the Home Secretary is playing games with something so important to criminal justice and to the fight against international crime and terrorism.
	The draft regulations cover a series of measures—the 11 measures that are on the Order Paper—and we support them. The confiscation orders, freezing orders on criminal records, the European supervision order, the joint investigation teams—we support them all. We support the measures on confiscation and freezing orders because no country in the EU should become a safe haven for criminal assets. We should be able to confiscate them wherever they are held. We support the two measures on criminal records and conviction. Exchanged data on the conviction of EU nationals should be harnessed for us to identify, locate and stop EU criminals entering our country and committing crimes. We support the European supervision order as a vital reform to interact with the arrest warrant, because suspects awaiting trial should, if appropriate, be in their home state. We support the joint investigation teams because we saw with Operation Golf that co-operation in complex investigations means we can arrest 126 traffickers from across Europe and
	safeguard vulnerable children not just in Britain but across the continent too. We support the prisoner transfer framework, because it makes it harder for other member states to refuse to take back their nationals from our prisons. We should have that co-operation in place.
	We support the rest of the 35 measures that are not on the Order Paper—the measures we do not have a chance to demonstrate our support for and to vote for tonight. We saw, with the problem of foreign criminals entering in the UK, that the Schengen information system is also vital and necessary. We need Europol to support and co-ordinate cross-border investigations. We support closer co-operation on combating child abuse imagery, because with this crime there are no borders and the police need to work with police across Europe and across the world too. We support action to tackle football hooliganism across borders, and as we have made clear many times in the House, we particularly support the EAW. The Association of Chief Police Officers has described it as an essential weapon, and distinguished legal figures, including the former President of the Supreme Court, have argued that
	“Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from justice, a handful of them British citizens, but the vast majority foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe.”
	And they are right.

Steven Baker: Does the right hon. Lady believe that our country was a safe haven for foreign criminals before the EAW, and does she believe it is a safe haven now for foreign criminals from countries outside the EU?

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were cases before the introduction of the EAW when it took years to extradite suspects—for example, suspected terrorists back to France. We should not be in that situation. If we have people in our country wanted in France for serious crimes, particularly terrorists allegations, we should be able to deport them to face justice.

Martin Horwood: Is not the important point that in a completely multilateral system we do not stand out, whereas if everybody else opted into the justice and home affairs measures and the EAW, and we alone stood outside, we would become a safe haven, because it would be much easier to stay in this country for extended periods than in any other EU state?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is suggested that we could arrange separate extradition treaties, but in the past when we did that, they took too long and caused immense problems. In the case of Rachid Ramda, the Algerian national arrested in the UK in connection with a terrorist attack on the Paris transport system, France sought extradition from the UK in 1995. The process was completed in 2005. That was when the EAW was not in place.

Steve Rotheram: My right hon. Friend started by calling the proceedings in the House “shambolic”. Does she agree that the Home Secretary has got herself into a mess, but that equally the Prime Minister has got himself
	into a mess, because on 29 October he told the House that he would join Opposition Members in the Lobby on a specific vote on the EAW?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister was asked specifically about the EAW, not the 11 measures on the Order Paper, and he could not have been clearer: he said there would be a vote before the Rochester by-election. That he and the Home Secretary think they can rip up promises made to the House shows that they are not taking this Parliament seriously.

David Burrowes: Is not this fine mess in many ways of Labour’s making, given that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) gave away the opt-outs? To be clear, would Labour have used the opt-out for any of the 130 justice measures?

Yvette Cooper: Nice try. I will come to the issues that the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today is the fault of the previous Labour Government is pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a ludicrous extreme.
	The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other measures are so important that we should be having a vote on them now.
	The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract with the British people, he said—but she said it was no longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the House that there would be a vote on the EAW.
	Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 measures, but what powers in practice have been brought back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not sign up to having a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but the police and Border Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures that apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway; we were already opting out of the European judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; and we will not be involved in setting up contact points to deal with the other countries in pursuing those responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol know whom they should ring.
	Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out.
	So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back the
	Yellow P
	ages
	. Congratulations to her.

Theresa May: rose—

Yvette Cooper: Let her try and defend it now.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady has said she disagrees with the opt in, opt out process. Will she remind the House which party was in government when it was negotiated?

Yvette Cooper: Given the shambles the Home Secretary has presided over today, the idea that she wants to make this about the last Labour Government is frankly ludicrous, and it makes her look silly. She decided what she wanted to opt into and out of, and she then claimed to the House that she had repatriated powers and safeguarded the hugely important things she is still too scared to give the House a vote on.

Nick de Bois: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he can tell the House whether he thinks, like us, that we should have a vote today on the EAW.

Nick de Bois: Since the right hon. Lady has been busy disparaging the 100 things or so she signed up to, does Labour now acknowledge that the Lisbon treaty was one of the greatest betrayals of this country on record?

Yvette Cooper: Again, nice try. The problem is that we are debating a series of measures that we and the Home Secretary think we should be opting back into. We think that the 11 measures are important, and we want to have a debate today on the additional measures we also think we ought to opt back into: the EAW and the rest of the 35 measures. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Back Benchers disagree, but at least we should have the debate. I can reassure the Home Secretary that there would still be a strong House of Commons majority in favour of her 35 measures, because they are important for fighting crime. Surely, however, we should have that debate so that the House can send a strong signal to Europe and the courts that we support these measures—that they are the right thing for fighting crime and for Britain and Europe.

William Cash: Is the shadow Home Secretary effectively saying that she agrees with the treatment of the Kings: a small child with a brain tumour is taken away from his parents in Spain, a European arrest warrant is issued by the British courts—after the July reforms—and the parents are arrested? Was that a good way to treat a child?

Yvette Cooper: I think there was dreadful decision making in that case. The police should not have continued with the EAW—they should have withdrawn it—and I think it was a bad decision. However, the hon. Gentleman will know of cases in this country where the police wrongfully arrest somebody; we do not then conclude that the police should not have a power of arrest. Instead, we say there should be proper and thoughtful decision making. What happened to that family should
	not have happened, and the whole House will have immense sympathy with them. They should not have been put through what they were put through.

William Cash: Of course, the big difference is that in the case of the Kings, this European arrest warrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It overtakes the Supreme Court; it overtakes this Parliament because the Lisbon treaty has allowed it to do so. That was passed by the right hon. Lady’s Government, but the bottom line is that it has created grave injustice.

Yvette Cooper: As I have made very clear, the police and the CPS should have withdrawn that arrest warrant much earlier; it was the wrong thing to do. I also think it important for the police to be able to work with other police forces right across European and right across the world, and to have these particular powers in place to work in Europe. The Home Secretary agrees, and we agree with her that this is the right thing to do, but the way in which we have had this debate in Parliament today has been utterly chaotic.

Geraint Davies: We have heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the Kings, but what about Hussein Osman, one of the 21/7 bombers, or the murderer Jason McKay and many more appalling cases of appalling crimes that have been brought to justice by the European arrest warrant? Yes, there have been a few odd mistakes, but a massive number of criminals have been brought to justice who, if the hon. Gentleman had his way, would still be lounging around, posing a threat to the public.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. A huge number of people, including more than 1,000 foreign citizens, are deported from this country, having been suspected of committing crimes, to face justice. I think it is right that we have the ability to do so.
	The Home Secretary has basically told us that we should be grateful for the debate that the Government have somehow conceded should take place. You gave your ruling, Mr Speaker, that we were not having a vote on the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary then stood up and completely contradicted that. She went on to say that we were voting on a package of 35 measures and that it was not a “pick and mix”. Why, then, has she picked and mixed only 11 of the measures and put them on the Order Paper rather than the full package of 35? The Prime Minister said categorically that we would have a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet he has refused to allow it.
	Again I urge the Home Secretary to rethink. It is not too late for her to rethink and to provide the House with a specific vote on the European arrest warrant. It is true that some of her Back Benchers would vote against it, but the rest of us would vote for it. On the Labour Benches, we want enthusiastically to endorse the Home Secretary’s measures; on the Conservative Benches, Members want rebelliously to oppose them—but we all want a parliamentary vote.
	Is not the truth that the Government took the European arrest warrant out of the motion because the Home Secretary and the Chief Whip thought they were being clever? They took it out because they wanted to minimise
	the rebellion. They wanted to tell journalists that it was a vote on the European arrest warrant, but tell the Back Benchers not to worry because they were voting only on prisoner transfer agreements. They wanted to pretend to Parliament that this was a vote on a package of 35 measures, yet let their MPs fend off UKIP in their constituencies by claiming that they never voted for the most controversial plans.

Ben Gummer: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether the European arrest warrant is included in this motion.

Ben Gummer: I have the privilege, unlike the right hon. Lady, of being in receipt of communications from the Whips and from the Home Secretary about today, and I have to say that we were all perfectly well aware of what we are debating, as the right hon. Lady has made clear.

Yvette Cooper: It might have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had explained that to some of his fellow Back Benchers—and certainly to us, as we really would have liked to know. We thought we were coming to vote on the European arrest warrant. When we saw the motion on Thursday and Friday last week, I specifically wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for clarity, because it was utterly baffling to us.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Before I allow the intervention of the hon. Member for North East Somerset, we have a point of order.

Chris Bryant: “Erskine May” says that if a Member prays in aid a document, they must be prepared to submit it to the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) prayed in aid documents that apparently came from the Government Whips. Surely they should be made available to the House.

Mr Speaker: It is not as simple as that. The ruling refers to state papers, and I do not honestly think that some document circulated clandestinely or otherwise as a result of the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government Whips Office necessarily constitutes a state paper. It is probably just some piece of advice or other material being lobbed around the Chamber. It does not have a hallowed status.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think state papers would normally include anything prepared by a civil servant for a Government Minister. I am sure that the papers to which the hon. Member for Ipswich referred were such.

Mr Speaker: I have not seen the document in question, although it may be presented at some point. At this stage, all I am saying is that it is not obvious to me that a state paper is at stake or that the hon. Gentleman has
	suffered any detriment. We will leave it there. I think that the right hon. Lady was about to take an intervention from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) quite understandably does not read his communications from the Whips Office with care and attention. Had he read section 4 of the document on today’s business, he would have found that it said:
	“We then move to a motion to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations, which includes the European arrest warrant.”
	I hope I have been able to clear up this matter.

Yvette Cooper: Now that the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have referred to this document, it really must be put in the public domain. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has kindly put it in front of the House so that that we can all consider it.
	That demonstrates the chaos we are in. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet communications to Government Back Benchers were very clear that it was.
	Let me now give the Home Secretary the opportunity to agree from the Dispatch Box that there will be a vote—an additional vote—on the European arrest warrant before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Let me give way to the Home Secretary so that she can do this. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] She has not done so, and that is really disappointing. Let me give her one further opportunity to do so, because it is a huge concern for this House if we do not have the opportunity to put the European arrest warrant beyond legal doubt—we know the mischief lawyers will make through judicial reviews. Let us have a chance to give a strong signal that we support all 35 measures, not just the 11 that appear on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary saying from a sedentary position that we will do that by voting for this motion, because Mr Speaker has said that it is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. We are therefore acting on advice from the House. I urge the Home Secretary again to stand up and say that she will withdraw this motion and give us the opportunity to vote on the full 35. I will let her do so.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the Home Secretary that this puts the House in an extremely difficult position. She has effectively said that Ministers are just going to make it up. The Speaker has been very clear that this motion does not include a vote on the European arrest warrant. The right hon. Lady has said that she is going to reinterpret this in any way she chooses. That is an irresponsible way in which to treat this House. If she brings this motion back tomorrow, with all 35 measures included, we will support it. We will work with the business managers, we will support it, we will vote for it. Then there would be no doubt that we had categorical support for all 35 measures. The Home Secretary should do that tomorrow. We will get it through—there is plenty of time. Will she do that tomorrow?
	If the Home Secretary will not do that tomorrow, she is playing fast and loose with the criminal justice system and fast and loose with this Parliament. On that basis,
	Mr Speaker, I think we need further debate now, and to return to the issue tomorrow. We have loads of time tomorrow. There is plenty of time for the Home Secretary to do this tomorrow. We could get it all in place. On that basis, I move that the Question be not now put.

Mr Speaker: Order. The question is, that the Question be not now put. As the Previous Question is an unusual procedure, addressed on page 404 of “Erskine May”, I ought to explain the effect of so deciding. I should perhaps first make the point that the question is debatable. If the previous question is agreed to, the draft regulations will not be further considered at this sitting. If the previous question is negatived, the Chair will be required to put the question on the draft regulations straight away, with no further debate. Only if the previous question is withdrawn can the House continue to debate the regulations. As usual, withdrawing the previous question would require the unanimous assent of the House. I repeat, for the sake of clarity and the benefit of Members, that the question is, that the Question be not now put.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Theresa May: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I put the Question, I want to hear from the Home Secretary.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that your clarification meant that it was now possible for speeches to be made in relation to the question that has now been proposed, which is that the question should not now be put. In that case, I am very happy to speak, and other Members may wish to do so as well.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that that is perfectly orderly. I did say that the question was debatable. No Member appeared to be standing, and Members seemed to be expressing a will to reach a decision by making their voices heard. However, the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to speak on the matter, and she will now do so.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) appears to have been getting herself into quite a state about this particular issue. I am very happy to explain the position to the House again, very clearly. It is very simple. There is a timetable that we must follow if we are to ensure that we can opt back in to measures by 1 December—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating.

Mr Speaker: I think that the context is germane to the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants to speak to the Question that the Question be not now
	put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly account.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech that can be made in relation to the question that has now been put.
	The motion is about whether or not we should vote on the regulations that are before the House today. As I have made very clear, we put those regulations before the House today because of the timetable with which we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to ensure that there is no operational gap.

William Cash: As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?

Mr Speaker: I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.

William Cash: I must point out, with great respect, that what my right hon. Friend is saying is, “We will go by prerogative.” That smacks of everything that is in direct contradiction to the evolving democracy of the House of Commons. The fact is that it was the prerogative that was displaced by parliamentary change and reform. What she is saying is that, on this particular matter, she will decide on behalf of the Government without regard to what Parliament has to say, and that is unacceptable.

Theresa May: I am not saying that. I suggest to my hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this matter. The Government have negotiated with the European Commission, and with other member states, a package
	of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of justice, which is why we have put before the House legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom law to accord with that package of 35 measures.

Graham Stringer: The Home Secretary has dug herself into a hole. She will not allow the House to decide on the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. Why does she not simply support the procedural motion so that she can go away, have a think, and then come back and allow the House to vote on whether it wants to enter into the European arrest warrant or not?

Theresa May: The House said absolutely clearly that it wanted to debate the European arrest warrant, and we have been debating the European arrest warrant. I am very happy to speak about the issue, and I am sure that other Members wish to speak about it as well. I understand that, if the Question put by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is agreed to, the debate will be ended in relation to the European arrest warrant, and the debate will be ended in relation to the regulations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say something for the sake of clarity? I do not dissent from what the Home Secretary has just said, but what I said, quite specifically, was that if the previous question were agreed to, the draft regulations would not be further considered at this sitting. I did not say, and I am not contending, that debate on these matters will be over for good. I am simply saying that the debate on the regulations would be over for today. It would of course be open to the House, which is in control of these matters, to have that debate on a subsequent day if it wished.

Lady Hermon: May I take this opportunity to remind Members on both sides of the House that we in Northern Ireland face an unusual threat? [Interruption.] May I ask Opposition Front Benchers to keep quiet for a moment?
	The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious. Dissident republicans—the Real IRA, or whatever they want to call themselves—hide beyond the border in the Republic of Ireland. They come into Northern Ireland, and they murder people. We had a prison officer murdered two years ago, on 1 November. If his widow and his family were aware that we are jeopardising the possibility of these measures coming into force, they would be deeply concerned, as I am. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that we must make absolutely sure that there is no time gap between these measures, which we have all agreed that we support, and the debate in the House.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting that out so clearly, and she is obviously deeply concerned about that point. She intervened on me earlier in relation to a particular case, and I would add to that that while,
	of course, in any individual case it is up to the independent police and prosecution services to choose what to do, if we were not in the European arrest warrant it would, as she has indicated, be harder for us to extradite people who had committed offences in Northern Ireland and who were now in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland has been very clear that if there is any operational gap at all between being in the European arrest warrant and opting back in to it, which there would be if we reject the package of measures, that would have serious consequences because it would be assumed that the arrangements currently in place would no longer be extant.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is time tomorrow to debate this, and we would then be able to vote on the whole package of 35 measures, support all of them and have no operational gap by 1 December? Will she confirm there is time to do this tomorrow?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Lady is concerned about the operational gap, she is perfectly able to vote for the regulations we have put before the House tonight. She talks about wanting to have time for debate. I say to her that we had time for debate and what has happened is she has raised another motion that is interrupting that time for debate.

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an example of game-playing by the Labour party on a crucial matter of law and order and the national security of this country? Opposition Members stand up and say at length how they want to debate this matter, how they want to extend the debate and how they want to cover every angle of it, and then they use an arcane procedure, for which we have to look up the precedents in “Erskine May”, to curtail the debate, and they do so with a view only to obstruct the proper business of this House, against the interests of justice and law and order.

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend—

Pete Wishart: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in debating these particular matters—the previous question—I do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I would take a view on that matter in due course, but not now.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

John Redwood: As I understand it, if the Government defeat the Opposition motion there will be no further debate, which would frustrate debate on a very important matter on which the Government wish to have more time. In that event, will the Home Secretary make more time available if colleagues are going to help her vote down the Opposition motion?

Theresa May: I did not move this motion that the Question should not now be put. I was very happy for this debate to carry on this evening, because there are hon. and right hon. Members of this House who wish to contribute to it. The right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary has taken the decision that she wishes possibly to curtail the debate that takes place in this House today on this matter. We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm—

Margot James: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I will do in just one moment.
	We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm, after we had had the urgent question following questions. There was a good length of time available, in which hon. Members, with the degree of latitude you indicated you would give them, Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion on the regulations, would have been able to debate matters that were not just the measures in those regulations. We then went into a business motion debate, which took a considerable time. We have now got into the debate proper on the regulations, but what we have seen—

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Theresa May: My hon. Friends are queuing up to intervene, so I ask my hon. Friend to wait.
	What we have now seen is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to change the terms of this debate and to stop the debate taking place, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary that she says she supports the regulations and she says she supports the Government on what we wish to do, and in that case she should allow the debate to take place and vote on the regulations.

Margot James: I am very concerned that these measures have a deadline, which is beyond this House’s control, of 3 December, by which time we have to opt in. We have a recess coming up on Wednesday, and I do not share the confidence of the shadow Home Secretary that the Government could find time for a debate tomorrow. The House starts sitting late tomorrow—at lunchtime—so we have minimal time then. We have almost three hours left to us to debate these important matters this evening, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to take all of that time to debate the substantial motion?

Theresa May: rose—

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the House to ask you to say how many hon. and right hon. Members have written to you asking whether they might catch your eye in this debate, so that if this motion is agreed the House will know
	how many hon. and right hon. Members will have been prevented from contributing to the substantive debate we were having before the shadow Home Secretary moved her motion?

Mr Speaker: The answer is that a considerable number of Members have applied to speak in this debate. If memory serves, approximately 20, possibly slightly more, wished to speak in the debate as a whole, not in the debate on the previous question—obviously I have had no written applications on that, because it has only just been introduced. On the overall debate today, I had approximately 20 requests to speak. If those Members do not have the opportunity to do so, they will be denied the opportunity today, but they would not, of course, be denied the opportunity subsequently.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point to the shadow Home Secretary that if she says she supports—

Edward Leigh: rose—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Theresa May: Yes, I did say I would give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

Edward Leigh: On the point the Home Secretary has just made on the importance of debate and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), as I understand the procedure, now that we are debating this motion there will be no further debate regardless of the result of the vote we are about to have. Am I right in thinking that?

Theresa May: I hesitate to give an absolute ruling, because Mr Speaker has, of course, made it absolutely clear what would happen, but the Question is that the matter be not now put and, as I understand it, if that motion is passed, the draft regulations will not be put to this House. We have been very clear about the timetable we need in order to address this matter.

Edward Leigh: We are in quite a serious position now. This is a very important matter and it looks as if, whatever happens in the vote in a few minutes’ time, there will be no further debate today. I beg the Government: this is an important issue and we can come back tomorrow. We can just set aside time, have a proper motion, and vote on the European arrest warrant. That is the clear, simple, honourable and direct way of proceeding.

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been saying throughout the debates on the various motions tonight, that the Government have been very clear about why they have brought the regulations forward in the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with.

Yvette Cooper: So determined are we that the House should be able to debate and pass these regulations and the rest of the 35 measures that we will not jeopardise
	those regulations. We want to have a vote tomorrow. The business managers can agree, and will agree, to have a debate and vote on all the measures tomorrow. If not, the Home Secretary can have our Opposition day debate in order to do it then, so there is no gap and we can get all these measures voted on in this House.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady doth protest too much. If she wishes to have a debate and to vote on the regulations, that option is open to her tonight. However, she has chosen to play politics with the matter and tried to curtail the debate. As we have heard from the Speaker’s answer to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate on the regulations. The Speaker has granted latitude regarding the subjects that Members may speak about, and we are able to debate the European arrest warrant and other matters that are not in the regulations.
	It is open to the House to have that debate but, sadly, the right hon. Lady has chosen to take a step that could curtail the debate and ensure that the regulations are not put before the House, in which case it would not be possible for Members to have their say on these important matters. She and I agree on the importance of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I might disagree on how some of them should be finalised and on whether we should be party to the measures, but I am clear that, at this point, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate and vote on measures that relate to law and order in this country. These are important decisions for the House to make, and I have clarified for the House the exact form of the regulations.

Geraint Davies: Is the Home Secretary saying that, if the House votes to terminate this debate today, she will refuse to have a further debate on the European arrest warrant and the statutory instruments—[Interruption.] I know she is saying that we can debate the matters now, but is she saying that if we vote not to do so, she would refuse to have any further debate on them?

Theresa May: I have made it absolutely clear that we have had an opportunity to debate these matters today. Ample time has been set aside for the debate. The point of the business motion on which we voted earlier was to ensure that we could have a lengthier debate, rather than the hour and a half that would normally be set aside to debate such regulations. The Government have given time to Members to make their points and contribute to the debate before voting on the regulations. We have been clear about our position on the regulations, but the shadow Home Secretary is now suggesting that she wishes to curtail that debate. The opportunity was there for hon. Members.
	This is an important matter, on which different views are held. I have made it clear why we have brought forward the regulations and why we should debate and vote on them now. We need to make these decisions in order to inform the European Commission and other member states and to enable the Council to take a decision, to ensure that there is no operational gap on 1 December.

Anne McIntosh: I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of the timetable—[Interruption.] I slipped out of the Chamber for one cup of tea; otherwise, I have been here for the duration of the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) will withdraw that remark. Will the Home Secretary explain what difference it would make if we postponed the debate from today to tomorrow or next week, given that we were promised a debate and a vote on these matters by 20 November?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend puts it very well. We said that we would bring this debate to the House and enable a vote to take place according to a particular timetable, and we have done so. We have introduced the measures in the form of regulations because these are the only ones that require transposing into UK legislation. It is absolutely clear what the legislative approach would be. I think that Members would be unwilling to accept any decision by the Government not to introduce the regulations or not to show Members before the 1 December cut-off date what those regulations would look like.
	I have not been in this House for quite as long as some right hon. and hon. Members but it is clear to me that all hon. Members wanted an opportunity to stand up and put their arguments on a variety of matters, including the European arrest warrant. That option was open to Members tonight, but the shadow Home Secretary is saying that she wants to forget about the timetable and about our need to put the regulations before the House. Instead, she seems to be saying that the Government should not have brought the debate to the House, because she does not happen to think we have done it in the way she wanted. Well, that is not a position that I am willing to accept. I have made it clear why the regulations have been brought forward and why we feel it necessary to do so. We have debated the European arrest warrant and, had she not moved her motion, other Members would have been able to debate it as well. Her motion is not an attempt to ensure that the House has a proper debate. It is not an attempt to ensure that the House votes on these important measures. It is just an attempt to take away—

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion smacks of political opportunism on the part of the Opposition? Does she also agree that it is ironic, or perhaps just odd, for them to be talking about voting on this matter given that we are in this position as a result of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated so ineptly and negligently? In the light of the incompetence of the previous Labour Government and of the current Labour Opposition, one might almost think that they were leaderless.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the difficulties that the Labour party is having with its leadership. I will make no further comment—[Interruption.] He tempts me to comment on why the shadow Home Secretary has been intervening in the debate in certain ways this evening, but I will not do so. He has made an important point.
	Earlier, I asked the right hon. Lady who had negotiated the opt-out, opt-in arrangements in the Lisbon treaty. She was unwilling to answer the question, because it
	followed on from her complaining about the inadequacies of those arrangements. Those inadequate arrangements were negotiated and introduced by her own Government, of whom she was a Cabinet member. She refused to accept that point, however. She will not accept any suggestion that we are now having to deal with these opt-out, opt-in arrangements as a direct result of the Labour Government’s negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. This situation is not a result of the way in which this Government have been dealing with these matters. I have made it clear that we should have been able to continue the debate tonight. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Lady to have introduced the new motion and I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will vote against it.

Kenneth Clarke: May I ask the shadow Home Secretary to reconsider the rather extraordinary step she has taken of presenting this archaic motion and, indeed, ask the House to consider quite where we are getting to on this issue? Nobody enjoys a good procedural row in the House of Commons as much as I do, and this is one of the best we have had for many years. It is perfectly straightforward—people are entitled to do this if they wish—but the House ought to reflect on what impression this is going to give to the outside world if we are not careful. We are discussing serious matters, yet we are all frolicking about in a rather schoolboy manner while the Whips try to get people to come back for an unexpected debate early in the evening. Let us be candid about what is happening.
	Some 20 or 30 years ago, this sort of thing was quite excusable, and people just thought it was one of the things this House did, usually at bizarre hours of the night. Nowadays, that is not the mood out there and we have to be careful that we do not feed the thoughts of those who do not have a very high regard for parliamentary debate and for party politics, and who believed they were told to expect, as every Member of Parliament expected, that we were going to spend an evening having a serious discussion on how we organise our policing and criminal justice system to deal with the extremely important and growing problem of international and cross-border crime. If the whole thing collapses in time for everybody to go and have a good dinner in the early evening, that will not rise to the expectations of serious members of the public who expect us to have a proper debate.

Steven Baker: I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend profoundly. I came into politics only because I was sick of the state of it, yet tonight I see the House of Commons alive. We have the opportunity to find out whether the Government are even asking the right questions. Surely he can see that this is about Parliament seizing back the initiative and reconnecting representatives with the public, who are so upset, largely because of the incompetence of the Labour party.

Kenneth Clarke: I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber
	at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.
	I sympathise with the shadow Home Secretary’s position; indeed, I agree with her on quite a lot of things. Her problem is that she is leading for the Opposition when in policy terms she agrees with absolutely everything the Home Secretary is proposing, and so do I. I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on her responsible approach to the subject. Everybody in this country responsible for the fight against crime and for the criminal justice system, and wanting to protect the public, is in favour of this opt-in. I am even more closely aligned with her than with some of my colleagues. I voted with her on the Maastricht treaty. I also voted with her on the Lisbon treaty, which paved the way for these international agreements being reached. That has enabled us to be so much more effective than we used to be in dealing with international criminal fugitives, who not only thrived on the Costa del Sol but were very present in London when they fled to this country before we steadily began to develop today’s arrangements.
	The shadow Home Secretary has, however, got absolutely no arguments against the Government’s proposals on the merits. She is therefore making a mountain out of a molehill of a parliamentary procedural thing, which she thinks serves her purpose. Of course she is also enjoying herself, which I quite understand in ordinary party political terms. She is allying herself with my right hon. and hon. Friends who profoundly disagree with her and with the Home Secretary, and who are totally opposed to me in my support for these criminal justice measures. The alliance between the shadow Home Secretary and some of the most dyed in the wool Eurosceptics in this House is a very unlikely one, but I go back to where I started.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I agree with him on many issues relating to the European Union, but I gently suggest to him that good Europeans like us need to understand that we have to carry the country with us. That requires proper processes in this House, not chicanery and not a proxy motion; we need a proper motion on the Order Paper, which is why every Committee that has considered this matter—the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee—decided that there should be a separate motion. That is all we are calling for.

Kenneth Clarke: I hope my opening remarks made it quite clear that the one thing I am not going to do is get drawn back into this entertaining procedural debate we had earlier on. It seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that if we have a vote at 10 pm on what is apparently on the Order Paper, the Government will be bound either to proceed with the opt-in to 35 measures or not to proceed with the opt-in to any of them. I repeat that the public are expecting the House of Commons to debate this seriously. It may be that there are not enough Members of Parliament against it and there are not enough arguments against it to delay us much longer, but I do not think that is the case. Some very respectable Government Members are going to oppose it—if they ever get the chance.
	One way or another, this argument about whether or not the strict requirements of parliamentary procedure—allowing everybody to get wildly indignant about what we all know is synthetic anger at the way the procedures have been brought forward—is not a wise way of proceeding. One thing that unites most Members so far, all the way from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to me, is that we think these are serious issues, and to break down now in an atmosphere of such trivial argument will be a triumph for the UKIP but something that all of us ought to regret.

Damian Green: It is always a privilege to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with whom I disagree on only one thing: his statement that he enjoys procedural rows more than anyone else. The attendance in the House at the moment suggests that procedural matters can unite the House in ways that, weirdly, the serious matters we thought we were discussing today appear not to have done early on. I speak in the same terms as he has: in the context of strong support for the measures the Government are putting forward today and for the whole of the 35 measures, which is shared by the official Opposition.
	On the shadow Home Secretary’s motion that debate be curtailed—that the Question be not put—it is important that some issues that have not yet arisen be discussed before the House decides whether or not to support it. Never having been here for this sort of debate before, I confess that I am not clear whether there is a winding-up speech from the Government. I see, Mr Speaker, that it may not be entirely clear whether or not there is a winding-up speech—I shall take silence to indicate assent. If there is a Government winding-up speech, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the point that has not come up yet: the attitude of the courts to the motion that we pass.
	The point has been made by Members on both sides of this House that the motion before us tonight only commits us to legislating on a certain number of the 35 issues. Clearly, that will be a decision for the courts—the courts will enforce that. In the controversy, particularly about the European arrest warrant, there must clearly be the possibility of legal challenge at some stage, perhaps through an application for judicial review. There is always the prospect that what a Minister says at the Dispatch Box is taken as the intention of the Government of the day and has some weight with the court, but clearly it has much less weight than if this House had passed a legislative motion.
	I speak with some experience, and with some scars on my back. As Immigration Minister, I was advised by Government lawyers that if we had a debatable motion and said things from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, that would entail the courts acting in a certain way on asylum appeals. As it turned out, that was not an effective way to make the immigration and asylum courts change how they operate. Subsequently, the Home Secretary wisely put through primary legislation to allow that to happen.
	That experience is analogous to the current situation. Strong supporter as I am of all the motions that the Government wish to opt back into, I wish to know whether
	they would be fire-proofed against judicial challenge and whether, if we do not pass a motion explicitly opting into all of them, there is any area of ambiguity left that could be exploited by their opponents. It is perfectly clear from the debates that we have already had that the vast majority of Members are strongly in support not only of the motion before us tonight but of what could have been a wider motion to opt into all the elements—
	[Interruption.] 
	The Opposition Chief Whip seeks to intervene from a sedentary position. I know that it would be improper for her to stand up and do so, but we are living in interesting times and debating unusual things, so perhaps she would like to speak as well.

Rosie Cooper: indicated dissent.

Damian Green: Sadly not. There is a serious point for the Government to address. Given the passions that have been aroused and the novel constitutional and procedural territory into which we have now gone, it would be particularly bad if the House went through all of this, presumably passed this motion and came back on another day to do it again, and then discovered that some of this could be challenged or even overturned in the courts at a later date. Assuming that this debate follows the normal course and there are winding-up speeches, I would be grateful if the Minister could address that issue.

Martin Horwood: In a fit of enthusiasm earlier this evening, I voted with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Labour party along with a rather distinguished collection of rebels from at least two diametrically opposed positions on Europe and from at least four different political parties. That was because we all shared her frustration at the outcome of the procedural shenanigans that have landed us in this situation in which we are voting on only 11 of the 35 justice and home affairs measures, and not specifically the European arrest warrant, which is the very one that we all wanted to debate and vote on. Now, the right hon. Lady has got a bit carried away. I cannot see any earthly reason, however frustrated we all are with the situation, for not voting on the 11 that we all agree on. There is no logic to that whatever. What justification is there for not voting on co-operation between asset recovery offices of the member states in the field of tracing the proceeds of crime? That is something on which we all agree.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Martin Horwood: I am making only a brief speech, but I will happily give way.

Yvette Cooper: Let me clarify this matter for the hon. Gentleman. We think we should vote in support not just of these 11 measures but of all 35 so that we have a vote from this House that puts it all beyond legal doubt, and we should do so tomorrow. We will work with him and the Government Front Bench to make that happen. The Government can have our Opposition day debate if they do not want to do it tomorrow.

Martin Horwood: There is actually nothing to stop the Opposition using their Opposition day debate for a further indicative vote on the European arrest warrant. I would entirely support the right hon. Lady if that is the motion she chose to bring to the House. However, that does not justify not voting on the statutory instrument that is required by the deadline of 1 December, and voting on it tonight. I am afraid that she is trying to sow more procedural confusion and the Home Office has already provided us with enough of that for one night, so I will not be supporting her in this Division.

Bill Wiggin: Whatever the outcome of the Divisions tonight, I think it would be helpful for the House to know what happened to my constituent whom I visited in Wandsworth prison. I was appalled not only by how horrible prison is but by the miscarriage of justice experienced by my constituent.
	In Romania, my constituent gave the equivalent of £2 to a young beggar. Two policemen immediately accused him of having sex with this boy, arrested him and took him to a cash point machine where he refused to pay them off as he had done nothing wrong. The prosecution was based on a witness who gave contradictory statements, and the policemen and the beggar were never seen or heard from again. My constituent was arrested on 11 August and was released from Romanian prison on 3 November 2004 by a judge who recorded that there was no evidence against him and that the original arrest warrant was illegal.
	My constituent returned home to the UK later in November, following direct advice from the then consul at our embassy. He refused to give money to his interpreter’s friends to make his files disappear, and so without either his knowledge, or that of the British embassy in Bucharest, he was tried and convicted in absentia—illegally—in 2005. An appeal followed, which led to another trial, of which neither he nor the British embassy were made aware. It was only on 3 March 2007, when he received an e-mail from the Romanian desk of the Foreign Office that he first heard news of these events. It said:
	“I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you.”
	It told him that the Romanian Ministry of Justice had noted that
	“you were sentenced to 7 years with…approximately £1,000 fine in moral damages and…approximately £140 for court expenses; your appeal against the above decision was made at the Bucharest Tribunal, the result was that your sentence was reduced to 4 years; this sentence was then open to appeal by the Prosecutor’s Office…and the initial sentence of 7 years was re-set. As far as we are aware, you will not be extradited but will have to pay the damages if the minor involved employs a lawyer to track you down.”
	Although the first my constituent knew of these developments was on 3 March 2007, our embassy in Bucharest had been working to find out such information, without any success, for more than two years since the initial trial held in absentia.
	On 5 March 2007, just two days later, my constituent was arrested at work in Tenerife, on an European arrest warrant, to serve the sentence in Romania, without any promise of a retrial. He had never been given any opportunity to speak or give evidence in his own defence and was given no promise that he ever would.

Jake Berry: The seriousness of the case to which my hon. Friend refers in his excellent speech will be listened to by his constituent and his constituent’s family. Does that not show that the voters who send us here do not want us to get involved in procedural shenanigans in the House of Commons? They would rather we have a proper debate and allow Members to raise constituency cases as my hon. Friend is trying to do.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is quite right, but this case gets a lot worse. This man was then held in a Madrid prison while an appeal against his extradition was submitted. The Foreign Office sent a letter to the Spanish authorities saying that, unless the Romanians were willing to ensure that a retrial took place, they should decline Romania’s request to have him extradited. No such assurance was given, but on 14 May 2007 he was taken back to Bucharest where he spent a further 21 months in prison, enduring horrendous conditions which fell considerably short of the minimum required by members of the EU. Most importantly, the Spanish constitutional court, following the Foreign Office request, upheld the appeal against extradition—

Mr Speaker: Order. These are matters of judgment and degree, and I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In the debate on whether the question be not now put, it is perfectly reasonable for Members on either side of the argument to put their case with reference to matters that they think either do or do not require immediate resolution by the House. Where the hon. Gentleman strays somewhat beyond the legitimate parameters of this debate is when he starts to go into great detail, which he is now doing, of the particulars of the matter of the EAW or some other policy matter. That he should not do, and I am clear in my mind, upon receipt of suitable advice, that it would be unwise—I know the hon. Gentleman applied to me to speak in the main debate—for him simply to read out the speech that he would otherwise have made as though the motion moved by the shadow Home Secretary had not been moved. The hon. Gentleman might not have wanted it to be moved, but it has been moved, and he needs to display—dare I say it—a deftness of touch and an adaptability in terms of footwork.

Bill Wiggin: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I have been at pains to avoid mentioning anything that might fall outside the motion—[Interruption.]

Pete Wishart: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Mr Speaker: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is very difficult to interpret the precise will of the House on these matters without notice. I am alert to the argument for closure, which is what he is seeking, but several other Members have been standing—[Interruption.] Order. Therefore, I am quite open to the case for closure after a reasonable interval, but I would like to see whether, when the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has concluded his speech—before it becomes even more disorderly—there are other hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. If there are, and if my assessment is that they are likely to want to make orderly speeches, I might wish to hear them. If the
	hon. Gentleman is hopeful that closure might be accepted before too long has passed—I leave the House to consider what constitutes “too long”—he may not be disappointed.

Bill Wiggin: I am sorry that I read some of my speech, Mr Speaker, and will leave it there so that you will not feel that I have strayed again. My purpose in speaking in this debate is that, as you have ruled that we are not debating something that we wanted to debate, I wanted the Home Secretary to hear of the specific injustices suffered by my constituent. I would have been able to read those out, but now I will not. Luckily for the House, I will not take a great deal more time. My constituent was told that he was not going to be extradited, but he was extradited on the day that the Spanish court decided that it would not allow that. I think that we need to be allowed to continue this debate—

Mr Speaker: Order. Ignoring the instruction of the Chair does not cease to be ignoring the instruction of the Chair just because it is done politely and with a charming smile. I think that the hon. Gentleman is concluding his speech—his peroration is being reached, and may ever have been concluded.

Bill Wiggin: Not quite.

Mr Speaker: But very nearly.

Bill Wiggin: Therefore, I hope that we will not rush to vote on this important matter, because there are serious cases. My constituent did not get legal aid to allow him to clear his name. Until we get the justice element right, we should not allow debates such as this to be curtailed too speedily.

David Davis: Perhaps it is entirely appropriate that I should follow a Member who has been disorderly, given the nature of the House all day—in many ways this is the most disorderly I have seen it in 20 years. However, in one respect he demonstrated a really important point: he gave us an example of what we should have been debating had this parliamentary gambit not been attempted. What we have seen today is a very clever parliamentary gambit by Labour Front Benchers, but it is acutely undemocratic. It has denied Back Benchers on both sides the opportunity to debate one of the most contentious issues to come before the House for some time.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I have completely different views on how this should proceed: he believes that this measure is entirely necessary for the delivery of law and order, and I believe that it is pernicious to law and order. I take the view that the first duty of this House is ensuring justice for subjects of the British Crown. What it has done, in fact, is allow a number of people, including the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), to suffer a miscarriage of justice and then have it arbitrated on in what could be termed a parody of a justice system in courts outside the United Kingdom.

Nick de Bois: My right hon. Friend makes an entirely important point. The House might be interested to know that my constituent Andrew Symeou, who languished in jail for 11 months and was not served well by the European arrest warrant, has just tweeted to say that today
	“should be about preventing injustice and protecting British citizens, not be used as a political football!”
	The debate should be heard.

David Davis: My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right. There are many cases of British citizens, such as Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark and Colin Dines, being badly mistreated. It is not just British citizens, because the leading criminal lawyers in 11 other countries have complained about this procedure in previous years. It is a very serious issue. This House, above all others, should have been in a position to debate it at some length, rather than being faced with this awful choice between accepting the Government’s business untouched and forgoing the debate altogether in the fond hope of having it another day.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If we accept the motion proposed by the shadow Home Secretary, we will not forgo the debate; we will be allowed a full debate and the Home Secretary will be able to return with a proper motion on the European arrest warrant. The shadow Home Secretary’s motion is much to be commended.

David Davis: I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend—I very rarely do. I would have liked to have had a full-blooded debate with several motions on each component, or at least packages of components of this so-called package, but that was not available to us today, and there is no guarantee that we will get it if the Opposition’s motion succeeds.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no guarantee, should the Opposition’s motion be carried, that we would get the proper debate that so many people are demanding, but the Government, having behaved pretty shamefully today, will be facing huge embarrassment if they do not give in to the clear will of the House, which is that there should be more time for debate. I urge him to support the shadow Home Secretary.

David Davis: I am afraid that—I will explain why in a moment—I am not in the business of casting something on the waters and hoping that it comes back. If I hear from both Front Benches that they have agreed to meet all day tomorrow to go through this business again, I will change my view, but I will not take a chance with something quite so invidious as this. Let us remember what we are talking about: taking British citizens, with no prima facie evidence, and sending them off to courts elsewhere in Europe. What we have been asked to debate assumes that those courts all deliver equal justice. Romania does not deliver equal justice. Nor does Bulgaria, Greece or Italy. Some of them have post-Soviet justice systems to which we are sending our constituents.
	What is so anti-democratic about the Opposition’s proposal is that it would deny many Members who had intended to speak today the opportunity to do so, and that is a tragedy, because this House’s first responsibility, as I have said, is the delivery of justice for our constituents. We will not have the opportunity to discuss the alternatives,
	such as having a multiple-negotiated outcome, rather than the European arrest warrant. We will not be able to talk about the other implications of Europol and Eurojust for the actions of the European Court and the ability of the Home Secretary to pass laws that protect us. All in all, I think that this is a very unfortunate outcome for Parliament today—a very clever parliamentary trick, but very poor democracy.

Simon Kirby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only those Members who wished to speak tonight who have been cheated, but those who, like me, wished to listen to the arguments on both sides?

David Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will hear some of us attempting to stay in order—desperately, Mr Speaker—while making those arguments, but he will be unable to vote explicitly on them; he will have to vote on whether we have a vote on another day or we close down the debate today. That is not the way Parliament is designed to work. I am afraid, therefore, that this is a travesty of democracy.

John Baron: I thank my right hon. Friend for making his comments. Would not the solution be for the Government to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that they will make time available to allow us to discuss the issue properly, as the country wants and as Parliament wants, and then we can move on? It is within their scope to do that now.

David Davis: It is, of course, within their scope, and I was very tempted at the beginning of the exercise to suggest to the Home Secretary that she shoots the Opposition’s fox—that she says, “We’re going to have a day’s debate tomorrow. There you are. All over.” They would have looked stupid and we would have looked very democratic. Sadly, that did not happen. I will not vote for the proposal today. I may abstain, I may double-vote, but I am not going to vote for the proposal because I do not want us to leave uncovered an extremely important debate in the history of this House.

John Hemming: Last time the previous Question was moved, I voted for it. On this occasion I will vote against it. The difficulty is to work out what the Opposition feel they will achieve from this. Although there is always an argument about the Executive lumping together lots of decision into one vote, one of the more complex questions is when the Executive are bound by a motion of the House. It was obvious on the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill and various other occasions that the Executive are not automatically bound by motions in the House. The Executive are bound when they say they will be bound. On this occasion the Executive have said that they will be bound. There is therefore nothing else on that that the Opposition can achieve and the motion should be withdrawn.

Steven Baker: I support the previous Question. To listen to some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, one would think that the Question destroyed our democracy, that it threatened
	our democracy or that it was bad for this debate. Not a bit of it. Of course the substantive Question is a matter of the first importance to justice, security, our international relations, our constitution and the democratic control of power.
	In a moment we will have a chance to answer the question, “Are the Government asking the House the right questions?” I urge everybody to vote Aye and send the Government back to reformulate the question, come back to the House and ask us the right questions about matters of the most grave importance. The motion—the previous Question—is not a motion to destroy our democracy; it is a motion to save it, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker: As the previous Question is an unusual procedure, I think I ought to repeat to the House the effect of this motion, because several Members have come up to me, quite understandably in this unusual situation, somewhat uncertain about what is at stake and what the implications of a particular course of action are. Let me try to help.
	If the previous Question—that is, the motion put by the shadow Home Secretary at, if memory serves me correctly, 7.1 pm is agreed to—the draft regulations introduced by the Home Secretary will not be further considered at this sitting. That is to say, they will not be further considered tonight. If the previous Question is negatived—that is, the right hon. Lady’s motion is defeated—the Chair would be required to put the Question on the draft regulations straight away, without any further debate.
	Lastly, before I put the Question, I can say to the House, with reference to an inquiry at a very senior level that has just been put to me, that yes, of course, if the House wishes to debate a motion or a set of motions of a similar or a different character, or a combination of similar and different characters, tomorrow, it is perfectly at liberty to do so. I am not saying it should do so; I am not saying any such thing. That is not for the Chair, but the House would be at liberty to do so with an emergency business statement to explain the change of business.
	I hope it is clear what the implication of agreeing to the previous Question is—no further consideration of the draft regulations tonight. If the motion is rejected, the draft regulations would have to be put to the vote without any further debate. And yes, the matters can be treated of by the House tomorrow if colleagues wish to do so. My role is simply to facilitate the will of the House. Is that clear?

Hon. Members: indicated assent.
	Previous Question put, That the Question be not now put.
	The House divided:

Ayes 229, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that the House will now move to vote on the 11 measures that the Home Secretary has put forward, which we support? Have you had any indication from Government Front Benchers, in the light of the speeches made in all parts of the House today, that they will come forward with a vote tomorrow on the remaining 24 measures?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. As I indicated in my explanatory statement before this vote, in which I sought to explain to the House the implications of different courses of action, I had been approached about debating some matters tomorrow, and I explained what was possible, but no determination was communicated to me by Government on that matter. In the circumstances, therefore, the proper course is to proceed to the next vote, which flows naturally from the defeat of the first motion. I therefore now need to put the Question on the draft regulations straight away without any further debate.
	Original Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:

Ayes 464, Noes 38.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Development and Co-operation Results Framework

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17709/13, a Commission Staff Working Document–Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework; and welcomes the document as an important step towards putting in place a results framework which will help drive improvements in the impact of the European Commission’s development programmes by reporting results achieved and providing performance information for the Commission and others to act on.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Consumer Protection

That the draft Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.
	That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.
	That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (18-21 Work Skills Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Immigration Checks in the UK

Tom Greatrex: I wish to present a petition initiated by my constituent Mrs Elsie Guidici among her fellow constituents and others in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the surrounding area, following the murder of her son in his home by a convicted criminal from outwith the United Kingdom. The related petition has received more than 800 signatures. It states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that current immigration checks in the UK are not tough enough; further that the Petitioners believe that the checks should mean that if an individual has no job, no money and a criminal record, they should be denied entry to the UK; and further that a Petition in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West Constituency on this matter has received over 800 signatures.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration to stop criminals from entering the UK and breaking laws.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001397]

Planning Application—Bozeat (Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition—somewhat earlier than I had expected, regrettably—about the village of Bozeat in my constituency, where a massive planning application has gone in that would increase the number of buildings around the village by 10%.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning application for 75 new houses outside, but adjacent to the village of Bozeat—planning application reference WP/14/00369/OUT—is unacceptable, because it would increase the size of the village by nearly 10% and would put further strain on public services and utilities that are already inadequate.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage the Borough Council of Wellingborough to reject the current planning application.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001398]

DAVID EFEMENA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), I should advise the House that, although a date has been set for the inquest into the death of his constituent, I have exercised the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow debate on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will refrain from discussing the matter that it is for the inquest to decide, which is the cause of death.

Jon Cruddas: Tonight, I wish to raise a number of issues regarding the tragic death of my constituent Mr David Efemena.
	First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the waiver of the sub judice rules regarding Adjournment debates, which is needed because the pre-inquest hearing begins on 17 November 2014. The issues that I will cover do not relate specifically to the findings of the coroner on the reasons for David’s death, which is why the waiver was granted, and the family very much appreciate that. Rather, I will focus on the events that took place in the camp that night, the camp protocols on the duty of care, and the questions of supervision and effective communication between adults and cadets.
	David died at 14 years of age on 23 March 2014. He would have celebrated his 15th birthday last Wednesday. By all accounts, he was a strong, sporty, athletic young man. David went on an air cadet camping trip on Friday 21 March 2014 at the Bramley defence training estate in Hampshire. On Sunday 23 March, at about 9 am, his parents Zoe and Felix received a telephone call from Basingstoke hospital advising them that David was “poorly”. While they were still speaking to the hospital, the police arrived at their home in Elm Park in east London to take them to the hospital. Upon arrival, a lady detective met the family and said, “I’m really sorry for your loss.” That is how they discovered that their son had died.
	I will provide a brief summary of the events that occurred on the base over that weekend before making some more specific points regarding David’s death. The summary is based on an oral report of the initial findings of the investigation that was given to the family on 27 March 2014. There are also some elements that come from the service inquiry report.
	The training that weekend was to take place at training base A, with the use of areas known as A, B and C. A risk assessment, an emergency action plan and a military training plan were all included in the Bramley application for the weekend. There were 13 male cadets and two female cadets on the trip, together with three staff members. Two of the senior cadets were responsible for the supervision of the cadets at the campsite, leaving 13 cadets taking part in the exercise.
	On the first night, Friday night, everyone slept in the building at training base A because the group arrived late. Following a 6 am start, the Saturday was spent setting up camp and practising patrolling, followed by an escape and evasion exercise, with four cadets evading and nine hunting, one of whom was my constituent David Efemena. The staff ordered the cadets to go back
	to their bashers after 10 pm on the Saturday. The staff then went back to training base A, which was 1.9 km from the cadets’ camping sites, according to the service inquiry report. It took members of the service inquiry team about nine minutes to drive between the two sites when subsequently investigating the events of the weekend.
	Two-way radios were supplied to each group to retain contact. The last actual contact between staff and the group took place at 10.15 pm, according to an oral report of the initial findings of the investigation that was read out to the family on 27 March 2014. The next morning at between 6.20 and 6.30 am, as the staff leader was walking to the cadet site, he began to receive intermittent radio messages, but could not make out what was being said. At 6.45, he received a clearer message that the cadets could not wake David. The staff arrived at the campsite at approximately 7.5 am. On realising the condition that David was in, they called for an ambulance while administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation. They were joined by another ambulance and then an air ambulance and the police.
	According to an interview with a fellow cadet and tent mate, David had complained on the Saturday afternoon, 22 March 2014, about an old rugby injury to his back and of feeling sick. Later, a rota for sentry patrols was established for that night, although David was excused given how hard he had worked carrying heavy equipment that day and because there was an odd number of cadets to divide up. However, I should add that it was suggested in the evidence of other cadets that he was relieved of duty because of his sore back.
	Sometime after 11 pm, the cadets went to bed. David’s tent mate has said that he was woken on up to 10 separate occasions through the night by strange noises and shaking from David. Each time he tried gently to shake David to wake him, but at no time did he succeed. At 5 am, David’s tent mate relieved two others for sentry duty, which began about 4 metres from where David was sleeping. His tent mate says that he then heard what were described as “wild animal noises” coming from the direction of the tent and assumed it to be a wild animal. Those sounds were heard another two or three times that morning, and the tent mate, covered by a fellow 14-year-old cadet, went to see David, who by that stage was shaking violently. At about 6.55 am they again went to check on David, and they noticed that his eyes were wide open and realized that they could not wake him up. David’s tent mate woke the other cadets and was left with David for about 30 minutes until adult staff arrived.
	There are slight discrepancies in timings throughout between the statements of the tent mate and the adults, but that is the basic series of events according to the police liaison officer assigned to the case.
	On the cause of death, the family had a meeting on 28 March 2014 with the coroner’s officer David Richards, who had notified them that the coroner’s report would be completed after the receipt of reports from both Home Office and paediatric pathologists, the police report and the service inquiry report. During the meeting, David Richards stated that the preliminary medical report showed that David had a scarred indent kidney, fluid in his lungs, an enlarged heart and a swollen brain. Mr Richard discussed with the family the possibility that David’s heart was enlarged, and that it could have been hereditary and the reason for his death.
	On 9 May, the family received a letter from the coroner Andrew Bradley, stating that he could
	“confirm that Professor Sheppard has completed her examination and I have a natural cause of death for David. In those circumstances I have concluded my Investigation and released David for burial.”
	Cardiac specialist Mary Sheppard had reported a discovered heart defect and concluded that death was due to natural causes. However, the forensic pathologist had not completed his report at the time, so the family’s concerns about the circumstances surrounding David’s death, particularly the lack of adult supervision, communication and early intervention, were not taken into consideration before the case was closed.
	The family, my office and solicitors have made a number of requests for the reasons for the delay in completing the pathologist’s report and how Mr Bradley had come to his conclusion, but they have not been answered. Subsequently, the family had a phone call on Wednesday 3 July, and then they received a formal letter on 4 July that stated:
	“Having regards to the history of the case and your concerns it seems appropriate for the matter to go forward to Inquest and for that purpose I have transferred jurisdiction to your local Coroner in Walthamstow.”
	As you said, Mr Speaker, there are a number of questions to be answered about the process that cannot be covered here tonight. Instead, I want to raise a number of points relating to the events on the base that weekend. Following David’s death, the family were assigned a police liaison officer from the Hampshire major investigation team and a warrant officer from RAF Northolt. On 24 March 2014, the family presented the police liaison officer with a list of questions that needed answers regarding events at the camp on that Saturday night and Sunday morning. In an e-mail dated 2 April 2014, the police liaison officer said that
	“these questions will be fully answered in time as all the information regarding the case is gathered together.”
	The parents notified both the police and the RAF that they would carry out an independent examination, and the independent examination report was presented to the family last Thursday, 6 November 2014. The service inquiry report, with three A4 ring binders of reference documents, was handed to them last Saturday, 9 November, by the president of the board of the service inquiry team, Squadron Leader Paul Ellis, and Warrant Officer Duncan Andrews. Therefore, until last Saturday, the family’s only account of what had happened to their son had been provided on 27 March 2014—some seven and a half months earlier—when the police liaison officer and the RAF warrant officer verbally explained their initial findings surrounding the events of that night.
	Despite the service inquiry report with three A4 ring binders of reference documents, many of the initial questions submitted by the family in late March 2014 remain unanswered. Those concerns cover three general areas, the first of which is the time taken to alert the adult in charge as to David’s condition that night, and therefore the medical attention given to David. The second is the protocols on the base regarding the supervision of cadets, and third is the possibility that the camp communication systems were faulty. The family believe that those factors might have made a difference to David’s survival that night, which is why I am asking these questions this evening.
	Having read the completed service inquiry report, the following areas still need to be resolved. On the diagnosis of David’s condition and communication on the base that weekend, the following questions need to be answered: when David initially declared that he was unwell, how was that managed and monitored, and by whom? It would appear that the adult in charge did not have the next of kin information. The parents were informed of David being “unwell” from Basingstoke hospital, and did not receive any communication from the RAF. As I mentioned earlier, they were informed that David had passed away by the hospital on arrival in Basingstoke, but prior to that there had been no contact between the RAF and the family.
	What are the protocols for determining a suitable camping area, or on the distance between adult supervisors and cadets? What are the emergency protocols in such environments? In this case, the service inquiry report details the distance from the camp site where the cadets were based to training base A where the adults were as some 1.9 km—approximately a nine-minute drive. According to the service inquiry report, the original camp area that was planned to be used that weekend had been changed, and an alternative camp area had to be used due to the cadets’ late arrival on the base on Friday 21 March 2014. The service inquiry report highlights that no risk assessments or other checks were carried out on the alternative site prior to its use.
	From the time that David was first believed to be shivering at about midnight, causing initial concern in his fellow cadet, were the first aiders made aware of his condition? What “escalation process” was in operation that night for cadets if they had concerns about their tent mates? As I have mentioned, David’s tent mate had concerns throughout the night and attempted to wake him on approximately 10 separate occasions. The parents were not informed of David’s condition before the police attended the scene, so why was that the case? Overall, from about midnight until around 5 am on 23 March 2014, David had shown symptoms giving rise for concern. Would earlier medical intervention have given him an opportunity to survive if an adult, and not a fellow 14-year-old cadet, had assessed his situation?
	The second area of concern relates to supervision on such training camps. Are parents aware when their children go on training trips that they are being cared for by 17-year-old senior cadets and not necessarily by adults? Should parents be made aware that there is not 100% adult supervision at all times, prior to signing the “Activities, Consent and Health Form”? If adults are not within close proximity to the cadets at the camp site, what protections should ensure communication between the sites in the event of illness and escalating health concerns? Should camp protocols ensure that “experienced” and not just “qualified” first aiders are available at the camp site. The three senior cadets in charge had received “Heart Start” first aid training, but did not know what to do when David’s situation was assessed—that point is made in the service inquiry report.
	Did any of the adults know that David had been unwell prior to leaving the camp that Saturday night, and were any plans in place to monitor his health? Why did the cadets not contact an adult on 22 March 2014 from about midnight, when there was first cause for concern? The report suggests a “lack of process” or “non-compliance
	of process”. Is that because of the lack of effective camp protocols in terms of supervision and medical diagnosis and care?
	The third area relates to equipment. The preliminary report from the police investigation highlighted that the communication system was not working and that it took one of the cadets approximately 30 minutes to alert one of the adults, who were not at the camp area with the cadets. Were the communication devices tested, once the camp site had been determined, based on range? The service inquiry report details that the distance was 1.9 km. We know that six radios were issued for the camping exercise. In May 2014, three of the six radios were tested. Of the three radios that were tested, they had a range shortage of approximately 200 metres between the cadets’ camp site and where the adults resided that night. It is unclear whether the two handsets issued to the cadets were among the three that were tested. The service inquiry report classified the three tested radios as “unserviceable”. It is unclear whether the handsets issued to the cadets had a fault range of greater than 200 metres. That raises questions regarding emergency procedures and the effectiveness of communications devices on the base that night. That is obviously of vital importance if cadets are miles away from their adult supervisors.
	These questions need to be answered. It has been nearly eight months since the death of my constituent David Efemena. Throughout, the family have battled to find out what happened to their beloved son that night. Answers to those questions, and many others concerning other elements of the case, are needed so that we might be reassured that our young people are safe when attending weekend military camping trips. If protocols on our military bases need to change, the family would take some comfort that other families might not have to experience what they have had to experience in the past seven and a half months following the tragic death of their son David Efemena.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this debate.
	I express my sympathy and offer my condolences to the family and to everyone who knew and loved David Efemena. Those of us who are parents cannot think of anything worse than the death of a child. Burying a child is every parent’s nightmare, but one does not need to be a parent to know and understand that. Our sympathies go out to his family. In these circumstances, it is undoubtedly the case that the awful grief they must bear is made all the worse when they do not know everything that has happened. It is a terrible feature of such cases, but I fear that it is almost inevitable that, to ensure we know everything that happened and are therefore able to learn the lessons, statements need to be taken and post mortems conducted, and pathologists, doctors and other experts all need to make their inquiries. Inevitably, that takes time. It behoves those who are charged with those dreadful tasks to act as swiftly as possible. That has to be in everybody’s interests, but most importantly it is in the interests of the family who are suffering in grief.
	I am placed at a severe disadvantage. I gently chide the hon. Gentleman in this respect: if I may say so, I think he has pre-empted the coroner’s inquest. This is a
	very serious matter. The death of a cadet is taken extremely seriously, not only by the air cadet organisation in this particular instance but by everybody and anybody associated with such a matter, as one might expect. What then happens is that there is a service inquiry, which delivers its report. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the report. I certainly have not, but I make no complaint about that because the service inquiry report was only delivered to the family on Saturday, when two members of the RAF, including the family liaison officer, attended them. That must be the right way. The first people to find out what the service inquiry has looked at and found must be the family, and that is why two members of the RAF attended. The coroner has not received the report yet, so I make no complaint that I have not. It would be a grave discourtesy to the coroner were I to see it before her.
	The coroner’s inquest will be rigorous, transparent and honest. I would like to draw on my own experience as a Member of Parliament. I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr Speaker, but not long after my election I secured a debate about a constituent killed by his grandson. It was a terrible case—I will not trouble anybody with the details because we are talking about David Efemena’s death—and in due course there was a coroner’s inquest, some of which I attended, which lasted longer than the two days currently set aside for the inquest into David’s death.
	It is not just the Nottinghamshire coroner; all coroners conduct extremely good investigations into all matters leading up to a death, as well as the cause of death, and they do so with rigour, honesty and transparency. In what I realise are dreadful circumstances, I know that the hon. Gentleman will take that assurance to the family, whom I know are legally represented, which is important. To be blunt, I hope they have had the benefit of legal aid. If not, I will do everything to ensure that they do. Furthermore, they should know that the coroner will bend over backwards to get all the answers. The family will be at the heart of the investigation.
	The hon. Gentleman quite properly asked a series of questions on behalf of the family, not only about the events leading up to David’s death but about the events after he died. Normally, a coroner cannot look into the latter, but regardless of whether the hon. Gentleman brings this back to the Chamber, I give a solemn promise that I shall ensure as far as possible that all these incredibly important questions are answered. Even if nothing and no one could have saved David, because of some inherent heart problem or condition or whatever it may be, I am told that the service inquiry has nevertheless made more than 20 recommendations arising from the hon. Gentleman’s important questions about supervision.
	It is the nature of these exercises—be it the Duke of Edinburgh Awards or the cadets—that they contain an element of excitement and risk. Nevertheless, everything must be done to ensure that children are as safe as possible, and important questions have been raised about the distance between where the youngsters were camping and the adult volunteers. I do not know the recommendations of the service inquiry—possibly some of that has already been addressed—but certainly the coroner will look into it. On the way the family were informed, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I do
	not know if there is ever a good way to deliver such dreadful news, but he asks an important question that needs to be answered.
	I do not think there is anything else to add until the coroner has conducted her inquiry and we know her findings, at which point I will be more than happy to answer all these questions as fully as possible.
	In this particular case, David’s family will, of course, always grieve for the loss they suffered because they no longer have their beloved son, but we must remember that other youngsters were involved—not just the youngster in the tent, but another young man who came to assist—and, indeed, the adult volunteers who came when they
	were told what had happened. The other young cadets must have suffered a terrible experience to know that somebody in their tent, one of their number, had become so terribly ill and died. Their welfare is also in my mind.
	I am more than happy to take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to assist him further. Mr Speaker, I think that everybody here would join him in expressing our condolences and sympathy to the Efemena family. We hope that all their questions can be answered and that, in time, perhaps some peace could settle upon them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.